Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Student experiences at for-profit career and technical colleges
(USC Thesis Other)
Student experiences at for-profit career and technical colleges
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running head: STUDENT EXPERIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 1
STUDENT EXPERIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT CAREER AND TECHNICAL COLLEGES
by
Maria Martinez Jurado
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
December 2015
Copyright 2015 Maria Martinez Jurado
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 2
Acknowledgements
This dissertation would have never been completed without the proper guidance of my
dissertation committee. I would like to thank and acknowledge Dr. Tobey and Dr. Yates for their
patience and guidance. I would like to particularly acknowledge Dr. Patrick Crispen for his
detailed and critical feedback to complete this dissertation.
I would also like to acknowledge my husband, Gabriel Martinez, for loving me
unconditionally and helping me throughout my doctoral program. I would like to thank him for
the sacrifices, both social and personal he has had to make to be married to a doctoral student.
Without his encouragement and eternal support, this dissertation would not have been possible.
Lastly, I would like to acknowledge my father, Fernando Jurado, for never letting me
forget to earn a doctoral degree. Without his relentless push to earn a doctorate, this dissertation
would not be possible.
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 3
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements 2
List of Tables 5
Abstract 6
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 7
Background of the Problem 8
Statement of the Problem 9
Purpose of the Study 11
Research Questions 12
Significance of the Study 13
Limitations and Delimitations 14
Definition of Terms 15
Organization of the Study 16
Chapter Two: Literature Review 17
Historical Overview of For-profit Institutions 17
For-profit Institutions Today 20
How For-Profit Institutions are Funded 23
Accreditation in Higher Education 25
Student Outcomes 27
Reasons Students Choose to Attend For-profit Institutions 33
For-Profit Investigations 36
Minority Students in For-Profit Institutions 40
Discussion about For-profit Institutions 43
Theoretical Framework 44
Social Capital Theory 44
For-Profit Choice 49
Summary 50
Chapter Three: Methodology 52
Sample and Population 53
Instrumentation 55
Data Collection 57
Data Analysis 58
Limitations 59
Chapter Four: Findings 60
Demographic Information 60
Overall For-profit Experience 62
Bernice – Pharmaceutical Technician 62
Andres – Car Repair and Painter 62
Michelle – Graphic Design 63
Pablo – Medical Biller 63
Lucero – Medical Assistant 63
Cristobal – Culinary Chef 63
Mario – Graphic Designer 64
Ruby – Graphic Designer 64
Sergio – Graphic Designer 64
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 4
Interview Findings 65
Recruitment: Initial Contact with For-profit Career or Technical College 66
Figure 1. Contact Chart 68
Faster Educational Attainment 69
Recruitment Strategies 70
Job Placement Findings 74
Employment Status 77
Findings Explained by Stanton-Salazar‟s Theory of Social Capital 78
Institutional Agent 79
Socialization of Discourse 79
Social Stratification 80
Findings Explained by Chung‟s For-profit Choice 80
Proximity 80
Socio-Economic Status 81
Parental Involvement 81
Summary 81
Chapter Five: Discussion 83
Discussion of Findings 84
Limitations 85
Implications for Practice 85
Suggestions for Further Research 88
Conclusion 88
References 90
Appendix A: Interview Protocol 98
Appendix B: Information/Facts Sheet 100
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 5
List of Tables
Table 1: Gender and Ethnicity of Participants 61
Table 2: Summary of Pseudonyms and Areas of study 61
Table 3: Summary of Interview Themes 65
Table 4: Summary of Recruitment Strategies 72
Table 5: Summary of Job Placement Findings 76
Table 6: Summary of Employment Status 78
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 6
Abstract
This study applies social capital theory and for-profit choice to identify the reasons
students choose to attend for-profit career or technical colleges. The purpose of this study was to
explore and understand student experiences at for-profit career and technical colleges related to
job placement and recruitment. To learn about student experiences, nine participants were
obtained through network sampling and were interviewed. Five participants were identified by
the researcher, who attended a career or technical college within the last five years. Those
participants referred additional participants to the researcher. Through data analysis, five major
themes were discovered. The first major theme found was that each participant initiated contact
with the institution, either via internet or telephone. The second theme indicated that a faster
educational approach to college highly influenced students to attend a for-profit institution,
versus a traditional four-year college trajectory, to expedite employability. A third theme that
was discovered involved recruitment practices. Some participants experienced negative
recruitment practices by representatives, while other participants experienced non-aggressive
recruitment practices upon enrollment at the for-profit career or technical institution. Next,
findings demonstrate that all nine participants were told upon enrollment that they would receive
help with job placement; some were guaranteed a job. Lastly, another major theme indicated that
employment status of participants did not reflect job placement expectations. This study aimed to
learn about individual student experiences at for-profit career or technical colleges.
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 7
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
For-profit institutions are private educational organizations that operate much like a
business. The primary function of for-profit institutions is to generate profit in return for
providing educational services to students (Hentschke, Lechuga & Tierney, 2010). Unlike their
non-profit counterparts, for-profit intuitions are governed by private firms or corporations
(National Conference of State Legislatures [NCSL], 2013). According to Deming, Goldin and
Katz (2012) for-profit institutions disproportionally attract underrepresented students such as
older individuals, women, African Americans, Latinos and students from low socioeconomic
backgrounds. For example, Deming et al. (2012) note that, while African Americans account for
13% of all students in higher education, 22% of African American students attend for-profit
institutions. Similarly, of the 11.5% of Latino students who attend college, 15% attend for-profit
institutions.
What attracts students to attend for-profit institutions? One reason is that they offer an
array of educational options, such as certificated training, associate‟s degrees, bachelor‟s
degrees, master‟s degrees and even doctoral degrees (Government Accountability Office [GAO],
2010). They also offer flexible schedules, convenient locations and cater to the demands of
workforce trends. Additionally, the for-profit open enrollment policy attracts students due to not
having admissions requirements.
Due to the large number of students, the for-profit sector serves, for-profit institutions
play an important role in higher education. While for-profit institutions provide college access to
students seeking economic prosperity (The Education Trust, 2010), college access does not
necessarily translate into positive student outcomes. For-profit institutions‟ students tend to have
lower completion rates, higher loan debt, and poorer economic returns than students who
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 8
attended a non-profit institution (Deming, Goldin & Katz, 2013). Despite these outcomes,
students continue to enroll in for-profit institutions. To understand this phenomenon, it is
important to learn about student recruitment experiences at for-profit career and technical
colleges. The aim of the study was to learn about student experiences in relation to recruitment
and job placement at for-profit career and technical colleges. It is important to note that, while
this study focused on for-profit career and technical colleges, some large for-profit institutions
that offer degree programs also offer career and technical training programs.
Background of the Problem
For-profit institutions have existed for many years and have grown dramatically within
the last two decades. For example, degree-granting for-profit institutions increased enrollment
from 18,333 in 1970 to 1.85 million in 2009 (Deming et al., 2012). Additionally, by the 2010-
2011 school-year, the for-profit sector served about12% of all students in higher education which
translates to approximately 2.4 million students (NCSL, 2013). While several factors contribute
to for-profit growth, three points interconnect and relate to negative student outcomes: for-profit
investment, recruitment practices, and regulation (Harkin, n.d.).
Senator Tom Harkin (n.d.) asserts the growth has a negatively impact on student
outcomes as for-profit institutions are accountable to investors, which is demonstrated by
aggressive recruitment strategies. Consequently, to produce returns for investors, for-profit
institutions rely heavily on aggressive recruitment strategies (Harkin, 2012). In fact, the GAO
(2010) conducted an investigation and found questionable and deceitful recruitment practices,
such as misrepresenting the institution‟s accreditation, graduation rates and employment outlook,
and future income earnings. Further details of this investigation are presented in Chapter Two of
this study. Moreover, in 2012, the United States Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 9
Committee found that 30 for-profit institutions employed 35,202 recruitment representatives,
while employing only 3,512 career services personnel. Harkin (n.d.) argues negative student
outcomes are a direct consequence of investment responsibility over student responsibility.
To understand the connection between student growth, recruitment and negative student
outcomes, it is important to understand policy regulation. In 1992, under President Bill Clinton‟s
administration, Congress prohibited for-profit institutions from compensating recruitment
employees based on student enrollment (Hanford, 2014). However, a decade later, President
George W. Bush added safe harbors to Congress‟s 1992 for-profit reform, which allowed for-
profit employees to earn compensatory benefits for student enrollment (Hanford,
2014).Permitting for-profit representatives to receive compensation for the number of students
they enroll is harmful because it can lead to questionable and deceitful recruitment practices, as
the GAO (2010) found. Safe harbors further led to aggressive recruitment practices, which,
ultimately, led to an increase in student enrollment. The following section further explores
negative student outcomes.
Statement of the Problem
Students who pursue postsecondary education recognize the relationship between
education and upward mobility (Hentschke et al., 2010). Students seek educational advancement
to increase employability and annual earnings. Many for-profit institutions‟ students are
underserved low-income minority students (Deming et al., 2012) who desire to prosper through
postsecondary education (The Education Trust, 2010). However, this desire may not be
actualized for some for-profit institutions‟ students. Data indicates negative student outcomes in
areas of program completion, loan debt and default rates for for-profit institutions‟ students
(Harkin, n.d.).
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 10
For-profit institutions disproportionately serve minority students. In fact, the overall for-
profit sector serves approximately 25% Black and Latino students while serving only 10% of
White students. The Education Trust (2010) asserts that, despite access to for-profit institutions,
there is little success for students. While for-profit associate‟s degree programs and certificated
programs appear to have higher completion rates than non-profit institutions, four-year bachelor
degree granting programs at for-profit institutions have much lower completion rates than do
non-profit intuitions (Deming et al., 2012). Using Integrated Postsecondary Educational Data
System (IPEDS) data The Education Trust (2010) concluded that, in 2008, only nine percent of
238,326 students enrolled in bachelor‟s program at the University of Phoenix graduated during a
six-year period. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (2011), the for-profit
four-year degree granting completion rate was 42%, which was much lower than the 57% of the
public non-profit sector and 65% of the private non-profit sector.
In essence, low completion rates translate to negative consequences for students. When
for-profit institutions‟ students do not complete their program, they are still bound to repay their
student loans. For-profit tuition is so high that many students max out their federal loan limits
(The Education Trust, 2010). Students often struggle to pay back loans and often default on
them. In 2008, while for-profit institutions‟ students represented only 26% of the loan borrower
population, they accounted for 44% of the loan defaults (US Department of Education [ED],
2010). Loan default is detrimental, as it cannot be discharged in bankruptcy and follows students
for a lifetime. According to The Education Trust (2010), unmanageable loan debt and loan
defaults demonstrate that for-profit institutions do not produce gainful employment for students.
As a result, students suffer consequences of loan default. As the benefits and costs of the for-
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 11
profit sector remains controversial (Chung, 2008), it is important to learn about student
experiences at for-profit career and technical colleges.
Currently, there are limited research-based articles related to student experiences at for-
profit institutions (Iloh & Tierney, 2014). While extensive anecdotal data exists, such as
publications from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System on completion rates and
student demographics, little qualitative data exists on student experiences. Due to negative
student outcomes for students who attend for-profit institutions, such as low completions rates,
high loan debt and high loan default rates and the large number of students who attend for-profit
institutions, it is important to learn about student experiences to understand the reason they
attend for-profit career and technical colleges. Moreover, Chung (2008) asserts that, despite
controversy over for-profit efficacy, insufficient information exists. This study aimed to explore
and understand student experiences related to their recruitment and job placement by for-profit
career and technical colleges.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to explore and understand student experiences related to
recruitment and job placement by for-profit career and technical colleges. Despite negative
student outcomes experienced at many for-profit institutions, bold recruitment practices and little
regulation allow for-profit institutions to prosper at impressive rates. Many students select for-
profit institutions as their educational choice to increase employability, which raises the
importance of learning about for-profit student experiences. Thus, the intent of the study was to
learn about student experiences related to recruitment and job placement. To establish the full
meaning of student experiences at for-profit career and technical colleges, a combination of
phenomenological and narrative research approaches were used. The phenomenological research
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 12
approach can be used to identify the meaning of experiences, and a narrative research strategy
can be used to capture stories (Creswell, 2009). The combination of both approaches were used
to capture the essence of for-profit student experiences about recruitment and job placement.
Social cultural capital theory and for-profit choice framework was used to analyze data
about for-profit institutions‟ students and their experiences. Stanton-Salazar‟s social capital
framework (2011) provided a comprehensive framework for understanding reasons students –
particularly minority students – choose to attend a for-profit institution rather than a traditional
four-year university. Chung‟s (2008) for-profit choice was also used to explain the rationale
students use to attend for-profit institutions. Both frameworks guided our understanding of
student experiences at for-profit career and technical colleges as they relate to recruitment and
job placement.
To answer the research questions listed below, the study completed nine in-depth
interviews with students who attended for-profit career and technical colleges. Participants were
selected by using the snowball sampling method. Five students who attended a for-profit career
and technical college were identified by the researcher and were asked to refer prospective
participants who also attended a for-profit career and technical college. Having attended a for-
profit career and technical college within the last five years was a requirement to participate in
the study. Program completion was not a necessary to participate in the study.
Research Questions
To explore student experiences related to recruitment strategies and job placement at for-
profit career and technical colleges, the following research questions were used to guide the
study:
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 13
1. How do students describe experiences at for-profit career and technical colleges during
the recruitment process?
2. How do students describe job placement experiences at for-profit career and technical
colleges?
Significance of the Study
A great deal of information exists on the characteristics of the for-profit sector. For
example, there is plenty of information on institutional growth, student outcomes and the
population of students the for-profit sector serves. Also, substantial investigative information
exists on recruitment practices used by for-profit institution representatives to influence students
to enroll. Chapter Two of this study presents more detailed information about the characteristics
of the for-profit sector. Further, it is important to note that, while plenty of information exists
about for-profit institutions, sparse qualitative and quantitative research about them exists (Iloh
& Tierney, 2014). Specifically, there is no empirical data that focuses on the lived experiences of
students who attend for-profit career or technical colleges. Thus, the significance of this study is
to provide the perspective of students who attend for-profit career or technical colleges in
relation to recruitment and job placement. This study is important due to the qualitative
component it adds to the limited literature of for-profit student experiences.
The significance of this study lies in its contribution to higher education by providing
insight into the direct experiences of individuals who attended for-profit career and technical
colleges. Exploring student experiences is important as it provides information about students
with modest resources who take a risk by taking out loans to pay for their education (Harkin,
2012). Additionally, the study provides information to potential students about the for-profit
experience to help them decide whether a for-profit institution will meet their career goals and
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 14
objectives. This information may assist prospective students to make wise future educational
decisions. The study provides useful information to for-profit leaders to advance program
improvement in areas of recruitment and job placement. This information can influence for-
profit leaders make sound student-centered decisions about student services. Lastly, the study
gives taxpayers information about how tax money is spent as it funds financial assistance
through grants for students (Hanford, 2014). Finally, information generated from the study will
help stakeholders, such as policy makers, students, for-profit leaders and taxpayers to understand
for-profit student experiences.
Limitations and Delimitations
A small qualitative sample size of nine participants is a limitation of the study. Another
limitation of the study is the assumption that all participants would provide truthful interview
responses. Since participants provided information based on their personal experiences and
perceptions, data may be biased. Additionally, due to using a snowball sampling method, the
sample may have bias as participants referred one another to partake in the study. Lastly, a
potential limitation was that, despite reports on anecdotal data (Iloh & Tierney, 2014), limited
qualitative research exists on students and for-profit institutions.
Delimitations were used to create boundaries for the study. The focus of this study
pertained to student experiences at for-profit colleges about recruitment and job placement. Thus,
participants were limited to individuals who attended a for-profit institution in the last five years.
This criterion was set to ensure data for the study was current to student experiences who attend
for-profit career or technical colleges. To obtain participants who matched this criterion, the
researcher used purposeful sampling rather than random selection sampling. Using random
selection sampling to gather participants may have posed a problem for the study, as participants
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 15
might not have attended a for-profit career or technical institution. Further, for-profit career or
technical program completion was not a requirement to participate in the study. Program
completion was not a requirement as the focus of this study was student experiences, not
program completion. Lastly, the study focused on for-profit career and technical colleges and
excluded four-year degree granting for-profit colleges and universities. Although some
participants attended Devry University or the Art Institute of California, both of which offer
degree programs, participants selected for the study attended the career or technical programs
offered at Devry University and The Art Institute of California.
Definition of Terms
For purposes of the study, the terms for-profit institutions and for-profit career and
technical colleges were used interchangeably. The following terms were used throughout the
study and are defined as follows:
Accreditation: The process by which educational associations conduct peer evaluations
to determine whether institutions meet the standards of the evaluation (ED, 2014).
For-profit institution: A private post-secondary school which operates like a business
by providing educational services in exchange for profit (Hentschke et al., 2010).
For-profit career and technical colleges: A private post-secondary school which
operates like a business by providing educational services for profit (Hentschke et al., 2010) and
intends to provide job-specific skills and technical skills (Association for Career and Technical
Education, 2014). For purposes of this study, this definition also includes the non-degree-earning
career or technical training that are recruiting and curricular activities of for-profit degree-
granting institutions.
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 16
Non-profit institution: A postsecondary organization that has a non-distribution
constraint where it does not have an outside to deliver its profits (Association for the Study of
Higher Education, 1999).
Open admission policy: An unselective and non-competitive college admissions
process given to anyone who applies (College Finder, 2014).
Student outcome: The educational, societal, and life effects that result from students
being educated (Great Schools Partnership, 2013).
Loan default: Failure to repay loans according to the terms agreed (ED, 2014).
Organization of the Study
This study is organized into five chapters. Chapter One includes a brief overview about
for-profit institutions. This chapter also includes the background of the problem, the problem
statement, the purpose of the study, research questions, and the significance of the problem. It
also includes the limitations and delimitations of the study as well as the definition of terms used
throughout the study. Chapter Two presents a review of the literature about for-profit
institutions. The literature includes a historical overview about for-profit institutions and includes
current information about for-profit institutions. The literature is also connected to social cultural
capital theory and for-profit choice framework to inform reasons students choose to attend a for-
profit institution. Chapter Three presents the qualitative approach used to conduct the study. It
reports instruments used as well as the procedures used to identify participants. It also includes
the interview protocol and the method used to analyze data. Chapter Four reports the research
findings of the study. Lastly, Chapter Five presents implications and recommendations for
current and future research.
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 17
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter reviews research that pertains to for-profit institutions. The first goal of this
chapter is to provide a historical overview of the early beginnings of for-profit institutions and
current information about modern day for-profit institutions. For-profit institutions date back
centuries and cater to employment market trends (Bennett, Lucchesi & Vedder, 2010). To
understand how for-profit institutions impact students, student outcomes such as completion
rates, loan defaults and gainful employment are discussed. Next, the chapter explores reasons
students gravitate toward for-profit institutions as they provide attractive programs geared
toward training for employment (Hentschke et al., 2010). Additionally, this chapter discusses
questionable recruitment practices used by for-profit representatives. The numbers of minority
students who attend for-profit institutions are explored, as a disproportionate number of
underrepresented students attend for-profit institutions. Another goal of the chapter is to explore
the limited empirical research of the for-profit sector. Lastly, the chapter aims to provide a
theoretical framework to better understand students and for-profit institutions. Social cultural
capital theory and the for-profit choice framework are used to provide rationale for reasons
students choose to attend for-profit institutions.
Historical Overview of For-profit Institutions
For-profit institutions have existed for centuries. Their roots originate in the fifteenth
century B.C. when Greece used proprietary schools and paid traveling instructors, known as
sophists, to provide education for individuals seeking instruction (Bennett et al., 2010). For-
profit educational services were particularly popular in Athens (Coleman & Vedder, 2010;
Coulson, 1999). A combination of the growing demand for educational services and the liberty
of educators to provide such services led to a quick form of education. Courses taught depended
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 18
upon student desires, which were mostly for employment purposes (Bennett et al., 2010). The
for-profit educational system was skilled at responding to the needs of students and to tailoring
instruction according to popular demand. It appears Athenian for-profit roots laid the foundation
for American for-profit institutions as they both respond to popular demands of the labor market
(Deming et al, 2012; Hentschke, 2010).
By the Industrial Revolution, American for-profit institutions were popular, as they
provided skills and training that traditional universities found unorthodox to the curriculum
(Bennett et al., 2010). Instruction was compatible with important disciplines within employment
trends, such as surveying, navigation, and accounting. These disciplines were in high demand, as
they were not taught in traditional colleges or universities. Proprietary institutions saw an
opportunity to supply instruction to meet the demand of non-traditional disciplines (Coleman &
Vedder, 2010). The ability of for-profit institutions to provide training in areas that traditional
universities failed to provide allowed the for-profit sector to flourish. Additionally, distance
learning became another form of unorthodox instruction and has roots in correspondence
learning of the nineteenth century (Deming et al., 2012). Nineteenth century correspondence
learning meant taking courses wherein the student and the instructor communicated by mail.
Essentially, the instructor delivered instruction by mail. Correspondence learning is much like
taking courses online today.
During the mid-twentieth century, after World War II, for-profit institutions became
larger and more popular. At this time, the federal government wanted to improve educational
attainment for soldiers returning from the service, hence the 1944 Servicemen‟s Readjustment
Act which is commonly known today as the G.I. Bill (Weisbrod, Ballou & Ash, 2008). Financial
assistance was given to veterans in the form of tuition reimbursement. For-profit institutions saw
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 19
the G.I. Bill as an opportunity to grow and profit due to aid given to students by the federal
government. Later, the reauthorization of Title IV of the Higher Education Act in 1972 rapidly
increased for-profit growth, as it permitted for-profit institutions‟ students to use tuition
subsidizes, such as the Federal Pell Grant at for-profit institutions (Bennett et al., 2010). The
Federal Pell Grant offers financial assistance to low-income students and, unlike a loan, it does
not have to be repaid (ED, 2014). However, under this act, students can take out subsidized or
unsubsidized loans that fall under the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program, known as
Direct Loan which must be repaid (GAO, 2010). The G.I. Bill, the reauthorization of the Higher
Education Act in 1972 and the ability to take out loans for tuition contributed to the rapid growth
and development of for-profit institutions.
In addition, significant changes occurred within the for-profit sector. Many for-profit
institutions started as alternative two-year credit recovery institutions where students were
successful (Hanford, 2014). Two-year recovery programs allow students with missed high school
credits to makeup credits needed to obtain a high school diploma. One of the oldest for-profit
institutions was founded in 1982 in Maryland and was known as a business college that offered
vocational training in areas like accounting and typing. By 1996, this institution had been bought
by a private company. Before expanding, student enrollment was fewer than 10,000 students.
After the expansion, it had 60,000 students. Moreover, the University of Phoenix was founded by
John Glen Sperling in 1976 and is one of the largest for-profit institutions in America. The
University of Phoenix was publicly traded in 1994 and is operated by Apollo Incorporated
(Apollo Inc., n.d.). Apollo Incorporated significantly increased enrollment between 2001 and
2010, from 124,800 students to 470,800 students. By 2010, many for-profit institutions‟ students
were enrolled in publicly traded to companies or private firms (Hanford, 2014).
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 20
For-profit transformation is important to recognize. For-profit institutions have evolved
from their early beginnings in Athens and continue to offer similar institutional values to meet
student needs by providing curriculum that reflects current labor market trends (Bennett et al.,
2010). In summary, the for-profit sector transformed itself from modest credit recovery
beginnings to some of the largest for-profit corporations in America.
For-profit Institutions Today
To explore today‟s for-profit institutions, two types of for-profit colleges are discussed:
for-profit degree-granting colleges and for-profit career and technical colleges. Areas of study as
well as the type of programs offered are presented in this chapter. Flexible and convenient
institutional characteristics are also explored. These elements are important as they explain for-
profit popularity among students and proponents of for-profit institutions. Nonetheless,
controversy exists over for-profit effectiveness, so areas of concern are also explored. Further,
expansion within the for-profit sector is discussed. This expansion is important to understand, as
it provides insight about for-profit recruitment practices and the role of investment in the for-
profit sector.
For-profit institutions offer degree programs as well as career and technical training.
Large for-profit institutions, such as The University of Phoenix, Devry University and The Art
Institute of California offer both types of programs, while other for-profit colleges such as
United Education Institute (UEI) and Kaplan College only offer career or technical programs.
Accreditation is the main difference between the two types of institutions. Degree-granting for-
profit institutions are regionally accredited while career or technical colleges are not, which
affects a student‟s ability to transfer courses they have taken to a regionally accredited
institution. A similarity between both types of for-profit colleges is that they provide educational
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 21
services in return for monetary earnings. This study focuses on for-profit career and technical
colleges but makes references to larger degree-granting for-profit institutions, as they also offer
career and technical programs.
For-profit institutions have missions that target particular fields of study (Ruch, 2001).
They provide certificated programs as well as associate‟s, baccalaureate, master‟s, and doctoral
degrees in a wide range of fields (GAO, 2010). For-profit institutions are known to respond to
the high demands of employers and develop programs to train students in professions that are in
demand (Iloh & Toldson, 2013; Hentschke & Tierney, 2010). For example, half of the twenty
fastest growing professions are health related (Deming et al., 2013).For-profit institutions have
added courses, certificates, and degrees in health-related professions due to the growth of job
opportunities in that sector. Many health related careers, such as a medical assistant,
phlebotomist, an ultrasound or X-ray technician, only require a certificate or an associate‟s
degree (Deming et al., 2013; U.S. Department of Labor, 2012). Due to the high demand of these
professions, both non-profit and for-profit institutions have doubled these programs during the
last ten years. However, growth has been greater among for-profit institutions. In 2009, half of
all students who attended for-profit programs were enrolled in health-related fields. During the
2008-2009 school-year, the largest field of study among the for-profit sector was in the
healthcare professions, and this was the second largest program for community colleges. As
health-related fields have boomed, the for-profit sector has met labor market trends and student
needs by offering health-related profession training.
The for-profit sector asserts it provides convenient institutional characteristics that attract
students. Attractive qualities include convenient class times, year-round courses and an open
admission policies (Bennett et al., 2010). Additionally, proponents of the for-profit sector claim
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 22
educational opportunities given to underserved minority students in job-specific areas increase
employability. For-profit institutions offer convenient course schedules, multiple course start
dates, and course curriculum to reflect skills necessary for the current labor market (Iloh
&Toldson 2013; Harding, 2010). These elements are important institutional characteristics for
students in need of flexibility to pursue a post-secondary education, hence for-profit popularity
among students.
Nevertheless, opponents of the for-profit sector have concerns. Some question the quality
of education students receive due to a large portion of part-time faculty, the absence of
traditional liberal arts education, limited facilities, and minimal availability of instructors
(Seiden, 2009). Additional concerns are related to aggressive recruitment practices (Harkin,
n.d.), a topic that will be later addressed in this chapter. Other concerns are related to student
debt and gainful employment (Iloh &Toldson, 2013).
Moreover, in recent years, there have been significant changes to the for-profit sector as
many institutions have been purchased by large corporations or investors (Hanford, 2014).
According to Harkin (n.d.), many for-profit institutions started as two-year credit recovery
colleges where many students were successful; however, this changed once institutions decided
to expand and be acquired. As for-profit institutions became publicly traded or purchased by
firms, for-profit institutions became responsible to their investors who often focus on short-term
profits rather than student outcomes (Best & Best, 2014). For-profit institutions expanded
significantly as a result of being traded or purchased by private firms. The downfall of expansion
is the monetary responsibility toward for-profit investors, which creates a potential conflict of
interest between student success and investor return.
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 23
It is important to understand the for-profit controversy. The for-profit sector appears to be
successful at providing students flexibility and training to increase employability. They also tend
to provide postsecondary access to underrepresented minorities. Nevertheless, for-profit
opponents question for-profit effectiveness as students receive limited education services,
experience aggressive recruitment and have negative educational outcomes.
How For-Profit Institutions are Funded
To understand how for-profit institutions receive funding, two main areas are explored.
First, funding allocated by the federal government is discussed, as it explains the role of the
government in helping students cover for-profit tuition. Eligibility requirements to receive
government funding are also presented. Second, student tuition in the form of loans is also
explored, as it provides insight on the different types of student loans.
For-profit institutions receive funding from different sources. One source is student
tuition obtained through the local, state and federal government (Cornell, 2010). The
reauthorization of Higher Education Act in 1972 under Title IV allows postsecondary
institutions, including for-profit institutions, to receive federal funding for students in the form of
Pell Grants (Bennett et al., 2010). Title IV is a federal program that offers financial assistance to
students who are pursuing postsecondary education. The Federal Pell Grant program gives
financial assistance to low-income students in order to increase access to higher education (ED,
2014). Pell Grants do not need to be repaid.
Further, institutions that receive Title IV funding must be licensed to provide post-
secondary education in the state in which they operate, must be accredited by an agency
recognized by the ED and must be eligible to participate in federal student aid provided by the
ED. Eligible for-profit institutions collect as much as 90% of revenue from federal financial
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 24
assistance (Rosenthal, 2012). During the 2005-2006 academic year 6,441 higher education
institutions received Title IV funding and of these institutions 39.9% were for-profit institutions
(U.S. Congressional Research Service, 2007). During the 2009-2012 academic year, the
University of Phoenix collected more than 86% of its revenue from federal financial aid; this
percentage translates to approximately $5.4 billion.
Another source of revenue for the for-profit sector is federal student loan programs. For-
profit colleges received $32 billion in the form of student loans and federal aid programs in the
2009-2010 academic school-year (Hanford, 2014).The Title IV loan program includes the
Federal Perkins Loan, and the Federal Subsidized and Unsubsidized Direct Loans (ED, 2014).
The Federal Perkins Loan is a school-based program where the institution is the lender and
provides loans for students who have great financial need. The William D. Ford Direct Loan
Program is the largest federal student loan program. It is a program where the ED is the student‟s
lender. Direct subsidized loans are given to students who show financial need in order to pay for
tuition costs, while direct unsubsidized loans are given to students who do not need to show
financial need. Direct subsidized loans do not accumulate interest while students are enrolled in
an institution whereas direct unsubsidized loans do accumulate interest during enrollment.
In addition to federal student loans, students can obtain private loans through for-profit
institutions but at higher rates than do non-profit students (Bennett et al., 2010). Essentially,
there are different types of federal loans students can receive to cover tuition in addition to
private loans they can receive from the institution itself. Private loans tend to have higher interest
rates than do federal student loans.
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 25
The previous section explored how for-profit institutions receive funding. The sector is
funded by the federal government through grants and student tuition in the form of loans. The
following section discusses accreditation and its impact on students.
Accreditation in Higher Education
To understand the role of accreditation in higher education, an overview of the
accreditation process is explained. Eligibility for federal funding is explored, as it explains the
link between accreditation and government funding for institutions. Additionally, differences
between the three categories of accreditation are discussed, as is the impact accreditation has on
students and institutions.
Accreditation is important to higher education institutions and is the process by which
educational associations conduct peer evaluations to determine whether institutions meet the
standards of the evaluation (ED, 2014). The accreditation process starts with an institutional self-
assessment, followed by a peer review and an on-campus visit (U.S. Congressional Research
Service, 2007). Conclusions are drawn based on self-assessment, peer review, and findings from
an on-site visit. Based on this information, the peer review team determines whether
accreditation should be given or denied to an institution or whether the institution should be
placed on probationary status. The significance of accreditation lies in the recognition that an
institution upholds standards required for graduates of an institution to gain admission to another
reputable institution or to gain credentials for professional practice (ED, 2014). The aim of
accreditation is also to ensure that intuitions provide quality education.
To be eligible to receive funding under Title IV, it is required that institutions be
accredited by an agency that itself is accredited by the U.S Secretary of Education (U.S.
Congressional Research Service, 2007). The accrediting agency is required to be a state, regional
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 26
or national agency that shows the ability to serve as an accreditation agency. The ED does not
accredit any institution, but the U.S. Secretary of Education determines which agencies are
reliable authorities to accredit higher education institutions (ED, 2014).
According to the U.S. Congressional Research Service (2007) regional accrediting
agencies operate in six regions of the United States. Regional accrediting agencies accredit 97%
of non-profit degree granting institutions. Regional accreditation is given to predominantly
academically oriented non-profit institutions (Lederman, 2007); however, they also accredit for-
profit institutions whether they are degree granting or not (U.S. Congressional Research Service,
2007). It is important to note that regional accreditation is considered the highest quality of
accreditation and is highly sought after for institutional prestige and legitimacy (Weisbrod et al.,
2008).
By way of comparison, national accrediting agencies across the U.S. fall into two
categories: faith-based and private career (U.S. Congressional Research Service, 2007). Most
for-profits are accredited by national accrediting private career agencies (Weisbrod et al., 2008).
Specialized or programmatic accrediting agencies makeup a third and separate source of
accreditation. These national agencies review specific programs and single-purpose institutions
by the profession they are best able to judge, such as engineering and technology or law
programs (SR Education Group, 2015). For example, law schools are accredited by the American
Bar Association, and library schools are accredited by the American Library Association.
The difference between regional and national institutional accreditation is the ability for
students to transfer courses from one institution to another. Nationally accredited institutions can
set their own curricular standards that may, inadvertently or deliberately, make it challenging for
students to transfer credits to a regionally accredited institution (Lederman, 2007). Generally,
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 27
nationally accredited institutions will accept the transfer of courses from regionally accredited
institutions; however, the opposite is not true (SR Education Group, 2015). For example, a
student who earns an associate‟s degree from a nationally accredited school might not be able to
transfer any courses to count towards a degree at a regionally accredited school.
Accreditation is a critical component of higher education. Accreditation is designed to
evaluate the academic quality of an institution. To receive federal aid funding an institution must
be accredited. Three types of accrediting agencies exist to provide accreditation to institutions
across the United States; however, regional accreditation holds the highest level of academic
reliability. As accreditation standards vary from institution to institution, some students have
trouble or are unable to transfer for-profit units to a non-profit institution.
Student Outcomes
Student outcomes are important elements of any higher education institution as many
students pursue postsecondary education to increase employability and potential earning power
(Hentschke et al., 2010). To understand student outcomes, completion rates will be presented.
For purposes of this study, completion is a term used interchangeably with graduation. College
tuition is a component of higher education that can have an impact on student outcomes in areas
of loan debt and loan default. Thus, it is important to explore how loan debt, default rates and
gainful employment play a role in student outcomes. For-profit completion rates, tuition, loan
debt, loan default and gainful employment are critical components of student outcomes.
Completion rates vary among two-year programs and four-year degree granting for-profit
institutions. While for-profit associate‟s degree programs and certificated programs appear to
have higher graduation rates than do non-profit institutions, their four-year bachelor‟s degree
programs have much lower completion rates than those of non-profit intuitions (Deming et al.,
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 28
2012). Using Integrated Postsecondary Educational Data System (IPEDS) the Education Trust
concluded that, in 2008, only nine percent of 238,326 students enrolled in bachelor‟s program at
the University of Phoenix graduated during a six year period (The Education Trust, 2010).
According to the National Center for Education Statistics (2011), the for-profit four-year degree
granting completion rate was 42%, which was much lower than 57% at the public non-profit
sector and 65% at the private non-profit sector. Data reveals negative student outcomes for
degree-granting for-profit institutions.
Further, and more importantly for this study, student outcomes were studied and
compared to the trends of students who majored in health professions at non-profit institutions
versus those of students at for-profit institutions. Data indicated students in community college
health care programs were twice as likely to complete an associate‟s degree as were their
counterparts at for-profit institutions. In fact, community college students had a 35% completion
rate whereas students from for-profit institutions only had a 17% completion rate (Deming et al.,
2013). Moreover, when exploring employment rates, students who attended community colleges‟
medical programs were more than two times more likely to be employed than were students who
attended for-profit medical programs. Statistically, non-profit community college students were
employed at 19% versus the 9% employment rate of for-profit institutions‟ students.
A price tag is attached to education for any student who wishes to pursue a post-
secondary education. Some students can afford tuition, while others cannot. In some cases,
students receive financial assistance in the form of scholarships, grants, or a combination of both
to bear the cost of tuition and college expenses. In other situations, students take out loans to
cover the cost of tuition. An economic comparison analysis by Cellini (2012) estimates how
much money students must earn to cover tuition costs at two-year for-profit institutions versus
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 29
two-year non-profit institutions, such as community colleges. Findings reveal students must earn
in excess of $50,000 annually in income, tuition, and loan interest for students who attend a two-
year for-profit intuition, while the combined cost for students attending a community college is
only $16,000. That is a $34,000 difference. Further, the study also found that, to cover personal
costs and for-profit tuition, students need to earn a minimum of 8.5% of a year‟s worth of
expenses. According to Cellini‟s findings, for-profit institutions‟ students need to earn $54,250
($50,000 x 8.5%) to fully cover their expenses versus $16,848 for community college students
($16,000 x8.5%) to break even. For-profit institutions‟ students must earn a significantly higher
salary than non-profit students. Thus, to cover educational fees, many for-profit institutions‟
students take out loans.
While a college education can be costly, a for-profit education appears to be far more
expensive. According to the United States Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions (Harkin, n.d.) the average tuition and fees at for-profit institutions are higher than those
of non-profit institutions. For instance, an average certificated for-profit program cost students
nearly $20,000, while a certificated non-profit programs costs approximately $4,250. To earn an
associate‟s degree from a for-profit institution, a student pays approximately $35,000, while non-
profit students pay about $8,300 for the same degree. Further, the average cost of a bachelor‟s
degree at a for-profit institution costs $62,700, as opposed to $52,500 students pay at a non-profit
institution. Based on data provided by the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions (HELP), on average, for-profit institutions‟ students pay much higher tuition than non-
profit students for the equivalent level of education.
Due to the expensive cost of a for-profit education, many low-income minority students
are likely to take out loans to pay for their for-profit education (The Education Trust, 2010). For-
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 30
profit institutions‟ students take out federal Stafford loans at a rate much higher than that of
students at non-profit institutions and take out the maximum federal loan limit to cover tuition
fees. For instance, in 2008, 95% of students received a Stafford loan at two-year for-profit
colleges, and 94% received Stafford loans at four-year for-profit colleges while 11% of students
at two-year public colleges received Stafford loans and 42% of students at public non-profit
colleges received Stafford loan. In fact, some students turn to private loan borrowing to cover
costs while others take out loans that are operated by for-profit education companies which offer
high interest rates and do not provide the benefits that federal loans do (Harkin, n.d.). For
example, students have fewer options when repaying their private student loans than their federal
student loans and (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 2012).
Further, a benefit of federal student loans is the fixed interest rates they offer, while
private student loans‟ interest varies. Also, federal student loan programs offer adjustments for
students who have difficulty repaying their loan while private student loans lack this option. As a
result of high loan debt and the inability to pay back loans, students are often forced to default.
According to Arne Duncan, the U.S. Secretary of Education, students at for-profit institutions are
likely to default (ED, 2010). In the 2008-2009 school-year, 26% of the borrower population
consisted of for-profit institutions‟ students who contributed to 43% of all loan defaults. Further,
the overall 2010 two-year cohort default rate was 9.1 %; however, the for-profit default rate was
12.9% higher than that of public and private non-profit institutions combined (ED, 2012). In
fact, as a consequence of high loan debt and high default rates among for-profit institutions‟
students, the Obama Administration expressed concern and proposed regulations which intend to
safeguard students from debt they cannot afford to pay back. Regulations are set to take place in
2016 and affect all higher education institutions with default rates of 25% or greater. Under this
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 31
regulation, institutions with excessively high default rates risk losing eligibility for federal
student-aid programs (Donoghue, 2011).
Student indebtedness is only one aspect of student outcomes. Another is employability.
Some students attend non-profit institutions, such as community colleges, four-year universities
or private non-profit institutions; however, other students opt to attend non-traditional
institutions such as private for-profit institutions. Regardless of the type of institution, most
people pursue postsecondary education to secure gainful employment (Hentschke et al., 2010).
Current data shows that students who attend for-profit institutions have lower economic return
than students who attend non-profit institutions (Deming et al., 2013). In other words, income
earnings were lower for students who attended a for-profit institution who did not gain
economically from their educational investment. It is important to note that for-profit
institutions‟ students have higher rates of unemployment and earn less than do their counterparts
who attended community colleges or other non-profit institutions. In fact, 23% of students who
graduated or left the for-profit institution six years after they were initially enrolled were not
employed and were searching for employment. Moreover, data showed that, of students who
were employed, for-profit institutions‟ students had lower income earnings than did students who
attended non-profit institutions (Deming et al., 2013).
When students enroll in a post-secondary institution, it is likely that increasing their
annual earnings is a motivating factor. Luang and Weinstein (2012) used 2004 through 2009
beginning postsecondary students „data to determine that students who already completed a
certificate program at a for-profit institution and students who recently began coursework at a
for-profit institution earned the same amount of money. Data also revealed there was no income
increase between students who completed their program and students who were currently
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 32
enrolled in a for-profit institution program. Moreover, Luang and Weinstein also found that
students who earned an associate‟s degree from a for-profit institution had a modest increase in
income earnings; however, it is important to note the increase was not statistically significant.
Interestingly, it was found that students who completed an associate‟s degree from a non-profit
institution had higher, statistically significant, income earnings. According to these findings,
students who attend non-profit institutions and earn similar degrees have higher income earnings
than do students with degrees from for-profit institutions.
Further, another study by Turner revealed similar findings (Deming et al., 2013; Turner,
2011). Turner generated data from the Internal Revenue Service using a sample of 45 individuals
based on annual income and enrollment. Turner found undergraduate students who attended for-
profit institutions between 1999 and 2008 had smaller monetary earnings than did students who
attended non-profit institutions. However, in another study, Cellini and Chaudhary (2011) found
contradictory findings. Using data from a National Longitudinal Survey of Youth from 1997 that
tracked individuals from high school, college and past college, they were able to compare
income earnings of students who completed an associate‟s degree from for-profit institutions and
revealed that those students earned approximately the same amount as students who completed
an associate‟s degree at non-profit institutions, such as community colleges. Although these
findings contradict the previous findings, it is important to consider that Cellini and Chaudhary‟s
conclusions were based on data from 1997, while more recent data was used to produce Turner‟s
conclusions.
For-profit student outcomes are critical components to recognize, as they have future
implications for students. Evidence indicates for-profit institutions‟ students are less likely to
graduate and less likely to be employed than are their non-profit counterparts (Deming et al.,
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 33
2013). Data also revealed for-profit institutions‟ students left with higher levels of debt than did
students at non-profit institutions. This combination of higher debt, lower employment, and
lower income might explain why loan default rates are much higher for students who attend for-
profit intuitions. The long-term effects related to completion, gainful employment, loan debt and
loan default for students who attend for-profit institutions indicate that students who do not
attend for-profit institutions are in a better financial position due to less loan debt, better
employment and better income earnings. So why do students choose to attend for-profit
institutions? The following sections explains the reason student choose for-profit institutions.
Reasons Students Choose to Attend For-profit Institutions
For-profit institutions have become increasingly popular and have grown in the last 20
years. For instance, in 1986 for-profit institutions enrolled over 300,000 students, but, by 2008,
student enrollment soared to approximately 1.8 million (Bennett et al., 2010). In fact, in the
2010-2011 school-year, the for-profit sector served approximately 12% of all students in higher
education which translates to about 2.4 million (NCSL, 2013). It is important to note that while it
would be helpful to disaggregate data and know what percentage of students attend for-profit
institutions and what percentage of students attend for-profit career or technical colleges, this
data does not exist. Moreover, this sector has grown significantly; thus, it is important to
understand reasons students choose to attend for-profit institutions. Level of customer service,
market trend demands, potential income earning power and methods of recruitment are explored
to provide insight into reasons students make for-profit institutions their post-secondary
institution of choice.
For-profit customer service appears to play a role in understanding for-profit choice. Iloh
and Tierney (2013) examined student choice and reasons students choose to attend a for-profit
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 34
institution over a two-year non-profit institution, such as a community college. The study
examined five community colleges and five for-profit institutions and explored reasons students
may choose to attend for-profit institutions. This was accomplished by having a member of the
study pose as a prospective student. The prospective student called each institution‟s admission
representative and inquired about the type of support they provide, information about the
program, financial assistance, and future employment. Results of the study concluded
community colleges provided less customer service to prospective students than did for-profit
institutions. For instance, the prospective student was given little information about questions
they asked and were often directed to the community college‟s website to obtain more
information. For example, prospective students inquired about academic programs, and they
were instantly directed to the website for more information. In contrast, for-profit institutions
offered considerable customer service to prospective students. For instance, for-profit admission
representatives provided much more information when the prospective student asked questions,
and students were not simply directed to the institution‟s website to obtain more information.
Students were invited to visit the campus to discuss financial matters in person, rather than over
the telephone. Based on information obtained by this study, there appears a notable difference in
the level of customer service provided to prospective students. For-profit representatives were
more engaging and friendlier than community college representatives, which may provide one
reason students choose to attend a for-profit institution over a community college.
What types of students attend for-profit institutions? According to Deming et al. (2012),
the for-profit sector serves students who are older, women, African American, Latinos, single
parents and students who come from low-income backgrounds and students who are first-
generation college students. These students may not understand the college enrollment process
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 35
of enrollment (Tumblin, 2002). Thus when a student is deciding between a for-profit institution
and a community college, the student may be more inclined to attend a for-profit simply because
they offer more assistance, they are friendlier and they are more engaging than community
colleges (Iloh & Tierney, 2013).
Current market trends may be another reason minority students choose to attend a for-
profit institution. A report in The Chronicle of Higher Education (Farrell, 2003) asserts students
are attracted to the application of real life skills, provided through training and certificated
courses, which are needed to obtain a job quickly. According to the GAO (2010), for-profit
institutions offer both certificated and degree programs in a variety of fields. Deming et al.
(2013) assert for-profit institutions specifically prepare students for specific occupations,
whereas non-profit community colleges are a gateway to a four-year degree, although many offer
career training. Many students are attracted to short programs where the curriculum is geared
toward rapid employability and stripped of courses considered non-essential often found in non-
profit institution‟s general education curriculum.
Additionally, since many for-profit institutions‟ students are first-generation college
students and come from a low socioeconomic status, families encourage attendance at a for-
profit institution as more emphasis is placed on immediate financial priorities rather than
intellectual development (Best & Best, 2014). For low-income minority students, the idea of
upward mobility presented by for-profit representatives is a motivating factor for attending a for-
profit institution. Often, these individuals cannot afford to consider non-economic reasons for
attending college such as a broader and deeper appreciation of the humanities. Best and Best
(2014) offer a unique perspective about the reasons minority students choose to attend for-profit
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 36
institutions. It appears minority students make a conscious decision to attend for-profit
institutions as they seek immediate economic return over academic growth.
Moreover, practical reasons also play a role in the reason students choose to attend for-
profit institutions. Students gravitate toward flexible institutional characteristics non-profit
institutions are unable to offer. For instance, for-profit institutions provide more online courses;
they have convenient class times, and offer year round courses (GAO, 2010). They also have an
open access policy which ensures access to anyone who applies to the institution. For-profit
institutions offer attractive qualities to students, such as job training specific to employment that
are in high demand and offer convenient scheduling options, all of which make students want to
attend a for-profit institution over a non-profit institution.
Recruitment practices also play a significant role in students‟ choosing to attend for-profit
institutions. In 2011, Apollo Incorporated, the company that owns The University of Phoenix
spent more than one billion dollars on recruitment (Hanford, 2014). The company justified the
amount spent on recruitment by asserting that their representatives make the enrollment process
much easier by helping students enroll and helping students apply for financial assistance.
For-Profit Investigations
To explore for-profit recruitment practices, it is important to examine two investigations.
First, a two-year investigation led by Tom Harkin (n.d.), senator of Iowa and chairman of the
Health Education Labor and Pension Committee (HELP) discusses methods of recruitment and
marketing strategies used to increase enrollment. Second, in 2010 the GAO investigated whether
for-profit institutions engage in questionable recruitment practices. GAO staff went undercover
and posed as prospective students to learn about recruitment practices.
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 37
That investigation found questionable recruitment practices intended to increase
enrollment (Harkin, n.d.).These practices were found in both degree-granting for-profit
institutions and career and technical for-profit colleges. Further, the largest for-profit institution
company in America, University of Phoenix, operates a large and sophisticated recruitment
department (Hanford, 2014). In 201, it devoted more than one billion dollars on recruitment and
marketing, 23 % of its entire annual revenue. The HELP committee obtained a 2007 recruitment
training manual that showed University of Phoenix recruiting staff was specifically and explicitly
trained to persuade students to enroll (Harkin, n.d.). Strategies found in the manual included the
“Pain Funnel” which was used to train admissions representatives to uncover the pain and fear of
prospective students about their current economic situation. Once prospective students were
reminded of their painful situation, the representative created a sense of urgency and made
students believe their painful situation could change once enrolled at the University of Phoenix.
Although the institution claims they longer use this training manual, this strategy is an example
of harsh recruitment strategies used to enroll students to for-profit institutions (Harkin, n.d.).
Additionally, the HELP committee found for-profit institutions use third-party companies
to broaden their search for prospective students (Harkin, n.d.). According to the HELP
committee, for-profit companies pay third-party companies who specialize in gathering and
selling information about potential students. Third party companies advertise themselves to
potential students as free, safe, and reliable sources to obtain information about college. Students
do not realize these third-party vendors are paid by for-profit institutions to intentionally recruit
and guide them to programs that are paid for by for-profit institutions
In an earlier study conducted in 2010, the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
conducted an undercover investigation into for-profit institutions‟ recruitment practices. GAO
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 38
investigators posed as prospective students and applied for admissions to fifteen for-profit
institutions in six states. During the investigation, the GAO found a privately owned college in
Texas instructed a student to falsify the Free Application for Federal Student Aid. The
prospective student was told to conceal a $250,000 savings account and stated that the
government should not know how much money a student has in his/her savings account.
However, the ED (2014) requires students to report all assets. The amount in the undercover
student‟s savings account was sufficient to pay the cost of tuition, yet the student was
encouraged to pay tuition with loans.
A representative at the same for-profit college in Texas told an undercover student to
falsely add dependents on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid to qualify for grants. The
representative attempted to minimize the fraudulent act by convincing the undercover student
that the government does not require reporting the numbers of dependents on the application.
Moreover, an undercover student was also told to falsely add three dependents and no longer
claim that the student was from a single-parent household because this would reduce their
income to qualify for a Pell Grant.
The investigation also examined statements made by for-profit institutions, finding that
13 institutions provided undercover students with deceptive or questionable information about
completion rate, employment and expected salaries (GAO, 2010). A representative at a publicly
traded for-profit institution in Pennsylvania failed to answer the undercover student‟s question
about graduation rates and, instead, stated that, if the student completes coursework, the student
should successfully complete the program. Moreover, according to federal regulations, colleges
are not allowed to misrepresent graduation data (Higher Education Compliance Alliance, 2014)
and must disclose accurate employability rates (ED, 2014). Another for-profit institution told an
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 39
undercover student earning an associate‟s degree in criminal justice makes them eligible to work
for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. According to the GAO, to work for the FBI, a bachelor‟s
degree is required; thus, the student was misinformed. Clearly, the undercover students in this
GAO investigation were misinformed about graduation rates, employment possibilities and
future earnings.
The GAO also examined information given to students about the cost and duration of the
program. Federal regulations do not allow colleges to misrepresent the total cost of a program
(Higher Education Compliance Alliance, 2014). However, the GAO (2010) found for-profit
institutions had inaccurately quoted the cost of a four-year baccalaureate degree to reflect only
three years of school rather than the required four.
The GAO also explored sales and marketing strategies used by for-profit institutions. A
representative for a for-profit institution in Texas was argumentative and aggressive when an
undercover student requested to speak to a financial aid representative before enrolling.
Convincing the undercover student to sign an enrollment contract and assuring them the
document was not legally binding was another strategy found during the investigation. At two
other for-profit institutions, undercover students were told they could earn rewards for recruiting
other students to enroll.
Although the GAO found for-profit institutions use aggressive and misleading
recruitment practices, they also found some institutions provided students accurate and helpful
information. Staff at a for-profit institution in Washington was honest about the transferability of
credits and stated some courses may transfer, while others may not. The institution also informed
the student that the transferability of credits depended upon the institution the student planned to
attend in the future. Another institution was also truthful about loans and even advised the
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 40
undercover student to proceed with caution because loans have to be paid back. A staff member
at an additional for-profit institution in Arizona informed the undercover student that the
$250,000 in their saving account had to be reported. Moreover, several undercover applicants
were given accurate information about expected salaries. A for-profit institution in Pennsylvania
told an undercover applicant a graphic designer could make between $10 and $15 an hour, which
was an accurate amount for individuals in this field. Students were also encouraged to find
further information on the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In short, the GAO found many for-profit
institutions operate with deception to reach enrollment quotas while others operate honestly and
provide students with truthful information to help them make informed decisions.
For-profit institutions operate like a business to generate profit (Hentschke et al., 2010).
For-profit institutions investors expect a return on their investments. Thus, great value is placed
on recruitment by both for-profit institutions and their investors. Student enrollment generates
revenue for the institution. As the HELP committee and GAO investigations show, some for-
profit institutions engaged in questionable or deceitful recruiting practices to artificially increase
their enrollments and, ultimately, their profit streams.
Minority Students in For-Profit Institutions
To fully understand the for-profit student population, it is also important to examine
student demographics, such as gender, ethnicity, income background and age group. Additional
factors to examine are whether individuals are first-generation college students, married or
parents. Also, it is important to examine the controversy over student populations the for-profit
sector specifically targets. Understanding the for-profit controversy provide insight about
underrepresented minorities that attend these institutions.
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 41
For-profit institutions serve both traditional and non-traditional students. However,
according to Deming et al. (2012) unlike traditional non-profit institutions, for-profit institutions
largely serve older individuals, women, African Americans, Latinos and students from lower
income backgrounds. In fact, in comparison to public institutions that serve 35% of minority
students and non-profit private institutions that serve 26% of minority students, for-profit
institutions serve 44% of minority students (Imagine America Foundation, 2013). In the 2011-
2012 academic year, African American and Latino students made up the largest percentage of
minority students at for-profit institutions: 24% of those institutions‟ students were African
American and 13% were Latino. Moreover, characteristics of students who attend for-profit
institutions show that students tend to be 25 years or older, tend to be first-generation college
students, married, single parents and tend to have greater financial need than do students in non-
profit sectors. According to Deming et al. (2013), for-profit institutions‟ students who are
considered dependents have 50% less family income than students from non-profit institutions.
Also, for-profit institutions‟ students are more than twice as likely to be single parents as are
students who attend community colleges. Indeed, the for-profit sector serves a large portion of
disadvantaged students.
To understand the characteristics of students who attend for-profit institutions Deming et
al. (2012) analyzed data from the Beginning Postsecondary Students project in a longitudinal
study for 2003-2004 of first-time beginning postsecondary students who were in their first, third,
and sixth year since entering an undergraduate institution. The authors also analyzed 2009 data
from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System. The authors found African American
students comprise 13% of total enrollment in higher education; however, 22% of African
American students were enrolled in for-profit institutions. Latinos students comprise 11.5% of
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 42
students in higher education, yet 15% of that demographic is enrolled in for-profit institutions.
Women comprise 65% of students in the for-profit sector. Moreover, when comparing
characteristics of individuals who attend community colleges and individuals who attend for-
profit institutions, it was found that for-profit institutions‟ students are more likely to be single
parents, come from a low-income family, and are approximately twice as likely to have a
General Equivalency Degree. In fact, 82% of students who attend a for-profit institution have a
high school diploma, compared to the 89% at non-profit institutions (Imagine America
Foundation, 2013).
As the for-profit industry has grown significantly over the last few years, controversy
exists over this growth (Rosenthal, 2012).While the for-profit sector is known to provide
educational opportunities to underserved student populations (Bennett et al., 2010),it is also
known to intentionally target low-income minority populations (Harkin, n.d.). On one hand, for-
profit supporters assert they meet market demands their non-profit counterparts fail to meet by
providing access to underrepresented minority students (Coleman & Vedder, 2008). On the other
hand, according to the Education Trust (2010), the size of the for-profit sector has grown due to
aggressive recruitment of low-income and minority students. Moreover, according to U.S.
Senator Dick Durbin (2015), the for-profit sector specifically targets individuals who qualify for
federal aid in the form of Pell grants, which are given to low-income individuals.
The for-profit sector serves minority students at disproportionate rates (Deming et al.,
2013). To shed light on this phenomenon, social capital theory (Stanton-Salazar, 2011) and for-
profit choice (Chung, 2012) is explored.
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 43
Discussion about For-profit Institutions
Students pursue post-secondary education to increase potential earning power and quality
of life (Hentschke et al., 2010). Although it is important to recognize the for-profit sector has
facilitated college access for underrepresented students (Bennett et al., 2010), many for-profit
institutions have intentionally targeted populations with modest resources (Harkin, n.d.). Data
shows students who attend for-profit institutions have higher student debt than do students who
attend non-profit intuitions (Deming et al., 2013). Reports also indicate for-profit institutions‟
students tend to have lower economic return and higher loan default rates than students who
attend non-profit institutions. Additionally, for-profit institutions‟ students tend to have higher
unemployment rates and tend to earn less than do their peers at non-profit institutions.
The for-profit sector captured plenty of attention in higher education, though little
concrete empirical research exists about it (Bailey, Badway & Gumport, 2005). According to
Iloh and Tierney (2014), there are a limited number of empirical studies on for-profit institutions.
Further, Iloh and Tierney assert most existing research about for-profit institutions is largely
based on anecdotal evidence. Ample information exists about their early beginnings, student
outcomes, aggressive recruitment, investigations and the underrepresented student population
they serve, though little qualitative research exists based on interviews with students, faculty or
institutional leaders of for-profit institutions. Moreover, Iloh and Tierney express a need to
conduct ethnography research studies on for-profit institutions to capture the essence of for-profit
student life. Qualitative research on for-profit institutions is missing from the literature,
specifically interviews with students about their experience as students who attended a for-profit
institution. Thus, the intent of this study was to offer direct insight about student experiences at
for-profit career and technical colleges as these relates to recruitment and job placement by using
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 44
a phenomenological and narrative approach. To explain student experiences at for-profit
institutions social capital theory and for-profit choice is used.
Theoretical Framework
To explore the reason many students attend for-profit institutions Stanton-Salazar‟s
(2011) social capital theory and Chung‟s (2012) for-profit choice framework were used. Social
capital theory offers a socialized perspective on the rationale of for-profit choice. For-profit
choice offers a unique perspective on characteristics related to for-profit selection.
Social Capital Theory
Stanton-Salazar‟s social capital framework (2011) is one lens through which to gain a
deeper understanding as to why students–particularly minority students–consciously elect to
attend a for-profit institution or a for-profit career or technical school rather than a traditional
four-year university. Social capital is defined by Stanton-Salazar as resources and significant
forms of social support that are part of an individual‟s network that can be accessed through
direct or indirect connections with institutional agents.
To understand social capital theory, it is important to highlight concepts central to this
framework. First, an institutional agent is described as an individual who has a hierarchal
position that is of high status and authority. This individual utilizes his or her role as an
institutional agent when he or she provides valuable resources to a student, such as information
about college admission requirements. Next, the concept of social stratification is understood as
the reproduction of social inequalities among groups and explains how middle class youth
become middle class adults. Further, socialization is the process whereby adolescents learn to
negotiate and interact in various socio-cultural worlds. Socialization plays an important role in
social stratification. For example, social relationships established with parents, families, and
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 45
community members function to socialize adolescents into discourse–known as access to
affluence of knowledge–such as academic support, advice and guidance. Discourse also involves
forms of modeling and training designed to encourage communication and relational
competencies to facilitate seeking help and utilizing peer networks. Thus, adolescents are
socialized into a certain discourse or way to function and navigate through the world. For
example, dominant societal discourse teaches adolescents values, beliefs, expectations, the
importance of educational attainment, how to use word choice in language, and how to
emotionally respond in certain situations. It is important to note that, according to Stanton-
Salazar (2011), students succeed academically based upon their understanding and navigation of
societal discourses ingrained in early childhood. This explains how students understand and
follow dominant discourse to excel academically. However, obvious questions arise when it
comes to what happens when students, particularly minority students, have not been instilled
with dominant discourse and to how will they navigate the educational system to succeed.
Further, an example of social capital is shown when a student asks his/her academic
counselor for a letter of recommendation. In this example, the student is using someone from
his/her social network as an advantageous resource to lead them toward college. Moreover,
following Bourdieu‟s (1986) work, the concept of social capital can be considered to be a
method of privilege in which the upper-class continue to remain in upper-class due social
reproduction of hierarchical structures. Subsequently, the middle and lower class remain in
middle and lower class status as a result of social reproduction. Nonetheless, Stanton-Salazar
(2011) used the term counter-stratification to signify what happens when institutional agents,
such as counselors, advocate on behalf of minority students and counter norms of hierarchical
social structure. In sum, social capital often reproduces social inequalities but this perpetuating
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 46
cycle can be altered to help minority students obtain resources for academic success and
ultimately social mobility when institutional agents contradict the social norm.
Using social capital as a framework can help gain insight into the reasons students choose
to attend for-profit institutions rather than traditional four-year universities. When applying
social capital theory (Stanton-Salazar, 2011) to for-profit institutions‟ students, one might
assume those students pursue for-profit education due to a lack of instilled discourse to attend
traditional colleges and universities. For-example, in the event minority students have not been
instilled with discourse to capitalize on institutional agents or may not even recognize that those
agents exist, they may lack the ability to seek academic advisement, hindering their ability to
attend a non-profit career college. In other words lack social capital may hinder students from
disadvantaged backgrounds who also lack predisposition of discourse that would enable them to
utilize institutional agents as resources for college purposes. In contrast to the dominant culture,
minority students are socialized differently and may not excel in school, as they lack social
networks and have not learned how to navigate dominant discourses to enhance college
opportunities (O‟Conner, Hammack & Scott, 2009; Stanton-Salazar, 1997). For instance, in the
previous example, a student instilled with discourse simply asks a counselor, an institutional
agent, for a college recommendation letter; however, a minority student who lacks discourse may
not know that an institutional agent or counselor could write such a letter and, therefore, opt to
attend a for-profit institution because of their easier open access policies (GAO, 2010).
Using social capital as a framework may also help ascertain the reason minority students
perceive for-profit institutions as a suitable post-secondary option. One can assume students with
social capital are knowledgeable about the college process due to the hierarchical structures and
social stratification (Stanton-Salazar, 2011). On the other hand, minority students may be at a
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 47
disadvantage because they lack social networks that would allow them access to such knowledge
in order to pursue a college education (O‟Conner et al., 2009; Stanton-Salazar, 1997). Taking
into account the high level of customer service and information provided by for-profit
institutions to prospective students in comparison to the limited information given to students by
community college representatives (Iloh &Tierney, 2013), a student may opt attend a for-profit
institution due to the degree of information, or misinformation, provided upon enrollment. For
instance, during a recent news interview, a student at a for-profit institution student stated that
the communication process at a community college was complicated in comparison with a for-
profit institution, and this student, ultimately, opted to attend a for-profit intuition because they
provided an outline of what courses to take (Farrell, 2003). Information from the for-profit
institution was easily obtained by the student and the student did not have to navigate through a
complicated system to obtain it.
According to Stanton-Salazar (2011) some students lack discourse to navigate through
the educational system. Thus, if students lack socialization to seek college information and for-
profit institutions provide this information, social capital helps explain why minority students are
attending for-profit institutions rather than traditional colleges as for-profit institutions provide
more information and better customer service than non-profit institutions (Iloh & Tierney, 2013).
The for-profit education sector also tends to serve a large population of minority students,
which include first-generation college students (Deming et al., 2012). According to research,
first-generation college students have less access to high school college guidance counselors
(McDonough & Fann, 2007; O‟Conner et al., 2010). From a social capital perspective, first-
generation students lack social capital and lack institutional agents (college counselors) to act as
resources to facilitate college opportunities.
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 48
Further, parental level of education plays a significant role in educational attainment of
students and can be explained by social capital. Low college attendance or low degree
completion rates can be attributed to Latino parents lacking knowledge of the higher educational
system in the United States; thus, these parents are unable to offer educational support
(Alexander, Garcia, Gonzalez, & O‟Brien, 2007). Furthermore, most immigrant parents have not
attended a four-year university and have difficulty guiding their children through the college
admissions process. A study demonstrated that children of Latino parents who have a higher
educational background are more likely to attend college than are students whose parents have
not attended college (McWhirter, Torres, Salgado & Valdez, 2007). In fact, a separate study
found that fathers‟ education was a predictor of whether the following generation attended
college (Cornelius-White, Garza & Hoey, 2004). Thus, the lack of parental familiarity regarding
the college process can make a difference in a child‟s educational attainment.
The relationship between a parent‟s level of education and a student‟s educational
attainment can be explained by social capital. According to Stanton-Salazar (2011), social
relationships established with parents, families, and community socialize adolescents into
discourse where access to knowledge, such as academic support, advice and guidance is
acquired. However, if students are deprived of this type of socialization, they may not possess
resources to facilitate opportunities to attend a traditional four-year institution or a non-profit
career or technical school. When examining reasons students attend for-profit institutions it is
likely that their parents were not part of the dominant culture and were unable to instill cultural
capital in them. As a result, students inadvertently choose to attend a for-profit institution instead
of a traditional four-year university or a non-profit career or technical school.
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 49
For-Profit Choice
For-profit choice is examined to understand student rationale on for-profit selection.
Chung (2012) explored student choice and for-profit institutions. Rather than asserting students
go through a series of stages and assuming students take an active role in college selection as
choice theory implies (Hossler & Gallagher, 1987; Iloh & Tierney, 2013), Chung asserts for-
profit choice is related to characteristics of both students and their families. Chung investigated
whether students accidentally select for-profit institutions or whether characteristics, such as
geographic exposure to for-profit colleges, tuition, or random circumstances, cause students to
attend for-profit institutions. The study used student samples from the National Education
Longitudinal Study of 1988 and the Postsecondary Education Transcript Study of 2000. The
study found for-profit choice is not accidental. In fact, the study demonstrated students from low
socioeconomic backgrounds and low parental involvement were related to for-profit choice.
Unlike traditional student choice theory, for-profit choice is connected to student or familial
characteristics.
Proximity informs student choice to opt to attend for-profit institutions, as students are
attracted to convenient locations (Coleman & Vedder, 2010). Socioeconomic status also plays a
role in for-profit choice, as many for-profit institutions‟ students come from disadvantaged and
underrepresented backgrounds (The Education Trust, 2010). Additionally, parental involvement
also influences for-profit choice as the most immigrant parents have not attended a four-year
university and have difficulty guiding their children through the college process (Alexander et al,
2007). All these characteristics play a role in whether students attend for-profit institutions.
According to Chung (2012), their decision to attend for-profit institutions is based on
characteristics, such as geographic proximity, low-income background and parental involvement.
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 50
For-profit choice is heavily influenced by external factors rather than the internal factors student
choice theory assert.
Summary
For-profit institutions have existed for centuries. They have roots in Greece where the
educational system was quick to respond to the demand of student needs (Bennett et al., 2010;
Coulson, 1999). Today, for-profit intuitions meet the high demands of current employment
trends and develop programs to train students in these fields (Iloh &Toldson, 2013; Hentschke et
al., 2010). They not only offer certificated programs, but baccalaureate, master‟s, and doctoral
degrees as well (GAO, 2010). For-profit institutions provide great customer service to
prospective students, partly because they need recruit students in order to generate profit (Iloh
&Tierney, 2013). For-profit institutions are attractive to prospective students, as they are flexible
and offer convenient class schedules; they have multiple session start dates throughout the year,
and they design program curriculum to meet demands of the current labor trends.
Although for-profit institutions offer students attractive institutional characteristics, there
are areas of concern. The quality of for-profit education is questioned due to part-time
instructors, a lack of liberal arts education, limited facilities, and limited availability of
instructors (Iloh & Toldson, 2013; Harding, 2010). Aggressive recruitment, student debt and
gainful employment are also areas of concern (Harkin, n.d.). Despite public scrutiny, for-profit
institutions have rapidly grown. Many for-profit institutions are publicly traded on stock markets
or are owned by private equity firms (Hanford, 2014). While opponents of the for-profit sector
believe these institutions are more accountable to their investors than to their students (Harkin,
n.d.), proponents of for-profit institutions assert they meet student needs by providing education
to meet labor market demands (Coleman & Vedder, 2010).
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 51
Although the for-profit sector has grown, controversy over effectiveness is present.
Hence, more research is needed in this field. Iloh and Tierney (2014) assert a limited number of
empirical studies exist, particularly qualitative studies on for-profit education. No studies have
been conducted about student experiences at for-profit career and technical colleges.
Consequently, this study aimed to provide direct insight about student experiences at for-profit
career and technical colleges about to recruitment and job placement. The purpose of this study
was to inform students and other constituents regarding whether for-profit institutions are a
viable alternative to traditional non-profit colleges and universities by using a phenomenological
and narrative research approach.
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 52
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this study was to explore and understand student experiences related to
recruitment and job placement at for-profit career and technical colleges. To gain insight about
student experiences at for-profit career and technical colleges, a qualitative approach was used.
Specifically, phenomenology and narrative research approaches were applied in this study. The
phenomenological research approach was used to identify “lived experiences” (Van Manen,
1990, p.9) of for-profit career and technical college students and to study the interpretations of
their experiences. A phenomenological approach studies the conscious experience of people‟s
lives. Additionally, the narrative research approach was used to describe narratives and to make
sense (Jonassen & Hernandez-Serrano, 2002; Merriam, 2009) of for-profit career and technical
college students‟ experiences as they relate to recruitment and job placement. This approach used
participant stories to understand the meaning of their experience (Merriam, 2009). The
combination of both approaches captured the essence and core meaning of student experiences,
elements typically missing from quantitative research (Creswell, 2009). Using a
phenomenological and narrative research approach was well suited for this study, as that
approach aims to explore student experiences and narratives related to recruitment and job
placement at for-profit career and technical colleges.
To conduct a comprehensive qualitative study, research questions guided the study.
According to Maxwell (2013), research questions are fundamental for the application of a study;
therefore, the following research questions guided the study:
1. How do students describe experiences at for-profit career and technical colleges during
the recruitment process?
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 53
2. How do students describe job placement experiences at for-profit career and technical
college?
Sample and Population
Selecting a sample to research is an important component of a study. According to
Maxwell (2013), purposeful selection is a strategy that involves deliberate selection of
participants. Participants were purposefully selected as only their input can present their personal
experiences, which makes their experiences uniquely applicable to the research questions.
Purposeful sampling was applied using the snowball sampling method. This method is typically
carried out by networking and identifying participants who meet the criteria of the study
(Merriam, 2009) as was done in this study.
The goal of this study was to explore and understand student experiences regarding for-
profit career and technical college recruitment and job placement; therefore, the criteria to
participate in the study applied exclusively to individuals who attended a for-profit career and
technical college within the last five years. Individuals selected for the study were uniquely
informative (Maxwell, 2013) as they provided direct insight into student experiences about for-
profit recruitment and job placement. It is important to note for-profit career or technical college
program completion was not a requirement to participate in the study. Six individuals who met
this criteria were identified by the researcher and were asked to refer other participants with the
same criteria until nine participants were reached. As more participants were referred for the
study, it accumulated information-rich cases (Merriam, 2009). Interviews yielded a wealth of
information related to for-profit career and technical college student experiences regarding
recruitment and job placement.
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 54
Further, the researcher identified participants who attended career and technical colleges
within the last five years. Three participants attended United Education Institute (UEI) for
training to become a pharmacy technician, medical biller or automotive painter and repairer. UEI
has been around for over 25 years and is known as a career training school that offers a variety of
training programs in business, healthcare, computer technology, automotive technology and
criminal justice (UEI, 2015). Another participant attended Kaplan College and completed the
medical assistant program. Kaplan College has nine campuses in California and offers training in
business, healthcare, criminal justice and legal studies, design, information technology, nursing
among other trades (Kaplan College, 2015). Kaplan College offers accelerated programs that
combine flexible schedules and training for specific careers.
Next, while the study did not focus on for-profit degree-granting institutions, five
participants attended career or technical programs within larger degree-granting for-profit
colleges. For example, a participant attended Devry University which is considered a degree-
granting institution; however, the participant was enrolled in a technical training program and
studied graphic design. Devry University offers over 40 programs and was established over 80
years ago (Devry University, 2015). They have locations in 17 states across the United States.
Moreover, four participants attended the Art Institute of California and were enrolled in career or
technical programs. Three participants were enrolled in a graphic design program and the other
participant was enrolled in a culinary program. The Art Institute of California is known for its
artistically inclined programs and has 37 campuses located across the United States (The Art
Institute of California, 2015). Participants who met the criteria to participate in the study
attended four types of for-profit career or technical colleges.
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 55
To answer research questions were used to guide the study, and nine in-depth interviews
were completed with students who attended for-profit career and technical colleges. As for-
profit institutions–particularly for-profit career and technical colleges–continue to expand at very
high rates (Bennett et al., 2010) and have experienced considerable controversy over institutional
effectiveness (Chung, 2012), it was important to explore student experiences related to
recruitment and job placement. Findings from the study intend to expand the limited qualitative
research on for-profit career and technical college student experiences. The focus of the study
was to find meaning from for-profit career or technical college students‟ experiences regarding
recruitment and job placement.
Instrumentation
According to Merriam (2009), interviews provide information that cannot be observed,
such as perspectives, interpretations and one‟s experiences. To obtain rich information regarding
student perspectives and experiences regarding for-profit career or technical colleges, interviews
were used to collect data. In particular, semi-structured interviews were used and included
predetermined questions to explore recruitment and job placement. Questions were flexible to
facilitate probing to obtain rich information. The research questions regarding recruitment and
job placement practices of for-profit career or technical colleges guided the interviews. Interview
questions were designed to stimulate dialogue and obtain in depth information about student
experiences at for-profit career or technical colleges (Appendix A).
Interviews took place in locations of convenience. Further, to stimulate the interview,
questions were based on a series of six types of stimulating questions (Merriam, 2009; Patton,
2002). The following six types stimulating questions reflect the work of Patton (2002) and were
incorporated into the study:
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 56
1. Experience and behavior questions were asked to understand student actions about for-
profit career or technical colleges. For example: “How did you discover for-profit
colleges?”
2. Opinion and value questions were asked to learn about student beliefs about for-profit
career or technical college. For example: “Would you recommend the institution you
attended to a family or friend?”
3. Feeling questions were asked to tap into the affective piece of student experiences. For
example: “Were you satisfied or unsatisfied with your for-profit career or technical
college experience? Why or why not?”
4. Knowledge questions were included to elicit factual knowledge about situations of
student experiences with for-profit career or technical colleges. For example: “Did the
college you attended assist you with job placement? If so, how was this done?”
5. Sensory questions were used to draw on specific information student experiences at for-
profit career or technical colleges. For example: “What attracted you to attend a for-
profit career or technical college?”
6. Background questions were included to understand the cognitive processes used by
participants to better understand judgments, values and opinions. For example: “Are you
the first member in your immediate family to attend college?”
Moreover, stimulating questions were useful when applying social capital theory and the for-
profit choice framework to gain understanding as to why individuals choose to attend for-profit
career or technical colleges. Both frameworks guided the study and help explain findings about
for-profit career or technical student experiences.
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 57
Data Collection
Data collection sets structure for the study and is an important component for data
analysis (Creswell, 2009). The collection of data was conducted in six steps. The first step
required study approval from the University of Southern California‟s Institutional Review Board.
This step ensured participants were protected by adherence to proper ethical guidelines, such as
keeping participant information and responses confidential (Appendix B). The second step
included initial contact with participants. Once potential respondents were purposefully selected
through snowball sampling, a method of networking was used to identify participants (Merriam,
2009); individuals were contacted via telephone. The researcher confirmed participation
agreement. Further, the researcher arranged a date and time to complete interviews. A total of
nine separate interviews were completed.
The third step involved obtaining consent from participants. On the day of the interview,
respondents received a facts sheet which included a brief description of the study, the interview
process, and included participant rights and how confidentiality will be maintained. Additionally,
confidentiality was explained to participants. Participants were told that any identifying
information would be kept highly confidential and pseudonyms were to be used to adhere to
confidentiality. Participants were also informed they had the right to withdraw from the
interview at any point without explanation. At this point, the researcher answered questions the
participants had and verbal consent to participate was obtained (Corbin & Strauss, 2008;
Maxwell, 2013). Additionally, participants were informed the interview would be audio recorded
to obtain as much data as possible during the interview process.
The fourth step involved the interview, which was guided by research questions related to
student experiences about for-profit recruitment and job placement. Interview duration ranged
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 58
from 15 minutes to 60 minutes. Further, the fifth step involved transcribing data recorded.
Interview transcriptions were used for data analysis and interpretation. Lastly, field notes and
data from semi-structured interviews were collected and taken into account for analysis. The
collection of data involved a series of six steps to strategically yield reliable data for analysis and
interpretation.
Data Analysis
Data obtained from interviews was analyzed by using Creswell‟s (2009) six-step process,
which consisted of the following steps:
1. Organizing and preparing data for analysis.
2. Reading through the entire data.
3. Detailed analysis of the coding process.
4. Using the coding process to generate themes for analysis.
5. Deciding how themes will be represented for data analysis.
6. Interpreting or finding meaning from the data.
The six-step process presented by Creswell (2009) was used to methodically analyze data
gathered from each participant. Additionally, Merriam‟s (2009) category construction and
analytical coding was incorporated to facilitate Creswell‟s steps. Once interview recordings were
transcribed, Creswell‟s first step was followed in organizing and preparing data for analysis by
transcribing interviews, typing up field notes and arranging data to gain a general sense of the
data and reflect on the overall meaning. During each interview, the researcher took notes. Using
Merriam‟s category construction method, transcripts and field notes were reviewed. The purpose
of the review was to take additional note on comments, observations, and queries in the margins
of the transcript to gather information relevant to the study. Creswell‟s second step included
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 59
thoroughly reading all transcribed data and taking notes about findings at this stage. The third
step involved a detailed coding analysis of the transcribed data. Coding involved organizing data
into segments of related information, prior to drawing conclusions. Commonalities among
segments were categorized and labeled with terms used based on the language of the participant.
The fourth step involved coding to generate descriptions or themes for analysis. It also involved
rendering detailed information about people, places or events in a setting which was useful for
narrative research studies. The fifth step determined how themes were represented in the study.
Lastly, data analysis involved making sense of the data in relation to for-profit student
experiences about recruitment and job placement. Merriam called this step analytical coding
where reflection was used to make meaningful interpretations of the study.
Limitations
A small qualitative sample is a limitation of the study. Due to the sample size of nine
participants, findings may not be generalized to the overall population (Creswell & Clark 2009),
particularly the for-profit career or technical college student population. Another limitation is
the assumption participants answered questions truthfully. Students might have been inclined to
answer questions to protect for-profit institutions as they have membership with the institution,
which possibly created bias in responses. Additionally, because the snowball sample method was
used, further bias may exist as participants referred one another to partake in the study. Lastly,
little empirical research on for-profit career and technical colleges is another limitation of the
study (Iloh & Tierney, 2014).
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 60
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
The following chapter presents a detailed summary of the findings of student experiences
at for-profit career or technical colleges related to recruitment and job placement. The chapter is
organized into four sections. The first section includes participant demographics, such as gender,
ethnicity and first-generation college status. This section also includes participant area of study
and participant pseudonyms to uphold strict confidentiality guidelines and to preserve participant
identities. The second section includes narratives of the overall for-profit career or technical
college student experience. The third section of this chapter includes themes found as a result of
both research questions:
1. How do students describe experiences at for-profit career or technical colleges during the
recruitment process?
2. How do students describe experiences at for-profit career or technical colleges regarding
job placement?
In total, five themes are discussed. Lastly, a summary of findings concludes the chapter.
Demographic Information
Demographic information is crucial to this study, as it provides insight into the student
population attending for-profit career or technical colleges. There were nine participants: five
males and four females. Seven were Latino, one was Caucasian and another classified himself as
Middle Eastern. All participants were first-generation college students. Table 1 summarizes
participant gender and ethnicity.
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 61
Table 1
Gender and Ethnicity of Participants
Gender
Male 5
Female 4
Ethnicity
Caucasian/White 1
Hispanic/Latino 7
Other 1
Additionally, to conceal participant identity and to preserve confidentiality, participants were
given the following pseudonyms: Bernice, Andres, Michelle, Pablo, Lucero, Cristobal, Mario,
Sergio and Ruby.
Participants enrolled in for-profit career or technical college programs to prepare for
employment in the careers of medical assistant, medical biller, pharmaceutical technician,
graphic designer, car paint and repair and lastly, chef. Table 2 presents participant pseudonyms
and areas of study.
Table 2
Summary of Pseudonyms and Areas of study
Pseudonym Area of Study
Bernice Pharmaceutical Technician
Andres Car Repair & Painter
Michelle Graphic Designer
Pablo Medical Biller
Lucero Medical Assistant
Cristobal Culinary Chef
Mario Graphic Designer
Ruby Graphic Designer
Sergio Graphic Designer
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 62
Overall For-profit Experience
To capture the essence of every participant‟s story, a narrative is described in the
chronological order of the interviews. Each participant described the decision to attend a for-
profit institution. Participants also described whether they would recommend a family or friend
attend the institution. The following narratives briefly introduce the study‟s participants.
Subsequent sections provide deeper insight into each participant‟s experiences after attending a
for-profit career or technical institution.
Bernice –Pharmaceutical Technician
After high school, Bernice was interested in pursuing the medical field and becoming a
pharmaceutical technician. Bernice viewed a television commercial that advertised the medical
field. This motivated her to call and inquire about the program. She made an appointment with a
representative and later enrolled. Although Bernice completed the pharmaceutical program, she
could not take the license exam because she was convicted of driving under the influence of
alcohol. She said, “With the medical field, they‟re very, very cautious about having a
record.”Thus, Bernice is not currently employed in the medical field. Bernice enjoyed her for-
profit educational experience and would recommend this program to others.
Andres – Car Repair and Painter
Andres was interested in cars, specifically painting cars. Andres‟s dream was to paint
high profile celebrity cars. He researched schools online and called an institution that specialized
in automotive paint and repairs. He enrolled immediately in the car repair and painter program
and is currently employed in this field. Like Bernice, Andres also enjoyed his program and
would recommend it to others.
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 63
Michelle – Graphic Design
After high school, Michelle wanted to become a graphic designer. She saw a television
commercial about graphic design and decided to call the institution for more information. She is
currently employed in a different field. Michelle would not recommend the program due to its
high cost.
Pablo – Medical Biller
Pablo attended a California State University campus but did not complete his degree as
“too many things got in the way.” Years later, he decided to return to school to pursue a career in
medical billing. He searched online for medical billing programs, filled out an online form, and
received a phone call from a for-profit career or technical college immediately. He is
unemployed and looking for employment in the medical billing field. Pablo would not
recommend the program to others, as it is pricey.
Lucero – Medical Assistant
Lucero was referred to a for-profit career or technical college by a relative. She called the
school for more information and made an appointment to enroll in the medical assistant program.
Currently, Lucero is employed in an unrelated field. She would not recommend the program to
others, as she believes the institution did not help her find employment as promised.
Cristobal – Culinary Chef
Cristobal researched the institution online and made an appointment for more information
about the culinary field. Cristobal wanted to become a chef, but, instead, did not complete the
program and enrolled in a community college, ultimately transferring to a University of
California campus where he studies psychology. Cristobal regrets attending the school and feels
his “education was a waste.” He would not recommend the program to others because he
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 64
believes for-profit career or technical colleges “care only about money… As long you had the
money, you‟re guaranteed in.” Cristobal was not fond of his educational experience.
Mario – Graphic Designer
Mario was encouraged to attend a for-profit institution by a friend and accepted an
invitation to attend a recruitment event. He was interested in becoming a graphic designer. He is
currently employed in a field other than graphic design. He would not recommend a for-profit
institution to anyone due to its price.
Ruby – Graphic Designer
Ruby was not doing well academically and even attended a continuation high school to
recover missed credits. A teacher complimented her artwork and recommended she attend a for-
profit college to study graphic design. She visited the campus on a class trip and enrolled shortly
thereafter. Ruby is employed in the field she went to school for and would recommend this
institution to others but would caution against attending due the high cost.
Sergio – Graphic Designer
Sergio was looking for a quick educational program that did not include general
education classes. He searched for programs online, submitted an online form, and was contacted
by an institution shortly thereafter. His goal was to find employment as a graphic designer and to
earn a high-paying salary as was promised when he enrolled to the institution. Sergio was
dissatisfied with his experience because he was unable to find “a good paying job” after he
graduated. He only found minimum wage jobs, contrary to what the institution told him. Due to
his experience, he would not recommend others attend the institution.
Each participant had his/her own story about how s/he came to enroll in a for-profit
career or technical institution. Participants searched for programs online, saw television
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 65
commercials, or were referred by someone. Each participant had specific career goals. After
attending a for-profit career or technical college, only two participants would encourage others to
attend. The majority of participants would not recommend others to attend a for-profit career or
technical college.
Interview Findings
Student experiences related to recruitment and job placement at for-profit career or
technical colleges were captured through semi-structured interviews. Using interview questions
(appendix A), nine participants were individually interviewed, as only their personal experiences
could provide insight into recruitment and job placement. All nine interviews were transcribed
for analysis. During the analysis process, responses to research questions provided insight into
student experiences at for-profit career or technical colleges. Three major themes emerged from
the research question related to recruitment: initial contact with the institution, recruitment
strategies used by for-profit career or technical college representatives, and faster educational
attainment. Additionally, two major themes were found from the research question related to job
placement: help finding employment, and employment status. Table 3 summarizes themes
related to research questions.
Table 3
Summary of Interview Themes
Research Question Theme
Experiences: Recruitment Initial contact with institution
Recruitment strategies
Predetermined decision to attend
Experiences: Job Placement Help finding employment
Employment status
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 66
Recruitment: Initial Contact with For-profit Career or Technical College
The first research question was designed to learn about student experiences during the
recruitment or enrollment process. Through interview questions, it was found that each
participant initiated contact with the institution. Specifically, six out nine participants researched
the institution online, two of whom learned about the institution through a television commercial
and decided to research the institution online. Michelle revealed she had an interest in graphic
design and saw a commercial that advertised that prospective students should look online for
more career information, “So I went to it (website), and they sent me free information about
different career.” Michelle provided contact information on the website and she was contacted
by a representative to tour the campus. Another participant disclosed a similar experience. Pablo
entered his contact information online. He was called “two or three seconds later” and was
invited to visit the campus the following day. Once participants entered their contact information
on the website, a representative contacted them by telephone or email and invited them to visit
the campus.
The remaining three participants were encouraged to attend the institution by a friend,
family member or high school teacher. Mario was highly encouraged by a friend to attend a for-
profit career or technical college and study graphic design. He attended a recruitment event
hosted by the institution. Mario gave his contact information to a representative and was
contacted shortly after the event. A relative referred Lucero to attend a for-profit career or
technical college and was encouraged to enter the medical field. Lucero called the institution to
inquire about the medical program and was invited to visit the campus for a tour. Further, a
teacher recommended Ruby attend a for-profit career or technical college. Ruby did not have
good grades in high school; in fact, she attended a continuation school to recover the high school
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 67
credits she lacked. Ruby stated, “There wasn‟t a lot of access to options, and it was just the only
thing that presented itself to me.”
Each participant initiated contacted with the institution by internet or telephone. Whether
participants called or entered their information online, a representative called them in return. As
a result, each participant was invited to visit the campus to meet a representative in person.
Initiating contact with the institution was found to be true for all participants. Figure 1
summarizes initial contact with the institution.
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 68
Figure 1. Contact Chart
Mario
Bernice
Referred by:
Friend
Teacher
Relative
TV
Commercial
Attended
School Event
Michelle
Entered
Information
Online
Representative
Called
Searched
Website
Entered
Information
Online
Paul
Called
Institution
Scheduled
Appointment
and Enrolled
Andres
Sergio
Called
School
Cristobal
Representative
Called
Ruby
Visited
Campus
Lucero
Called
School
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 69
Faster Educational Attainment
Whether participants initiated contact by entering information online or whether they
were referred by a friend, family member or teacher, another common theme was that each
participant was not interested in attending a campus traditional non-profit college system. Rather,
they were interested in, and were seeking, employability through an accelerated educational
program stripped from what they deemed non-essential and non-career-related coursework.
A quicker approach to the traditional college system seemed to interest each participant.
Participants sought programs specifically tailored to their area of study. Sergio disclosed, “I
looked up (a) school that offered just core classes for what I was interested in... instead of taking
all these other classes that won‟t be related to my program.” Lucero deliberately choose a for-
profit career or technical college because “I would be done in certain amount of time…. It means
getting a better education at a faster pace.” Completing post-secondary training quickly was also
Lucero‟s primary goal. Bernice deliberately wanted a fast educational approach and revealed, “I
wanted to go to school but I also didn‟t want it to take too long… I thought it was going to be an
easy way out per se.”
Further, three participants attended a community college and one attended a California
State University prior to attending a for-profit college. Participants felt the public non-profit
system required too many general education courses irrelevant to their areas of interest and
which, ultimately, prolonged program completion. Andres wanted a “hands on program” and
was exclusively interested in taking courses that pertained to automotive repairs as his goal was
to be employed in the automotive industry.
In summary, interview analysis found participants were highly interested in quick
educational training programs. Participants were not interested in curriculum that was not part of
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 70
their area of study. Lastly, participants who previously attended public non-profit institutions
disliked taking courses unrelated to their areas of interest thus sought educational programs
specifically designed for employability.
Recruitment Strategies
Interview analysis revealed recruitment strategies used by for-profit representatives
varied and were used to encourage potential students to attend the institution. Some participants
experienced aggressive, persistent and persuasive recruitment tactics by for-profit career or
technical college representatives while other participants experienced non-aggressive recruiting
strategies. Moreover, the discussion of job placement during the enrollment process was also
found to be a recruitment strategy. Regardless of recruitment method, each participant visited the
campus and met with a representative prior to officially enrolling.
Six of the nine participants had similar recruitment experiences and believed
representatives used “strong” recruitment practices to convince them to enroll. For example,
Ruby described her enrollment experience as “an aggressive pursuit… I‟m sure there is some
kind of bonus incentive to have students sign into majors.” Ruby recalls being invited by a
representative to a mixer where they made her feel at home – “they are experts in the field and
tend to understand how to up sell, how to convince someone that this is what I‟ve been looking
for.” In fact, Ruby understood recruitment practices well as she obtained a part-time job on
campus and discovered representatives “made the place sound better than what it was. They
leave out information, or they bend it to make it sound really appealing, so you feel
overwhelmed with how good it sounds, like a car salesman.” Ruby was referring to resources the
institution presented to potential students. Ruby learned students were told the institution was
equipped with state of the art technology, but failed to mention that their particular site was not
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 71
equipped with the technology described to potential students. However, the claim was not
necessarily false, as other campuses may be equipped with the technology they described.
Another participant shared an experience similar to Ruby‟s. Mario learned first-hand
recruitment practices, as he, too, worked part-time on campus and recalled, “The techniques I
saw them use were very similar to sales tactics as car salesman. They are persistent, and they will
say what you want to hear. Not the truth, but not a lie either.” Similar to Ruby‟s experience,
potential students were made aware of technology and facility resources that were not offered at
that particular campus, but the technology and resources were offered at another location.
Moreover, while Mario was still in high school, a representative called him “two to three times a
day, two or three times a week, yeah they were really persistent.” Other participants encountered
similar experiences. Cristobal reveals, “They were just constantly harassing me, calling me, hey,
do you really want to come?” Cristobal also recalls being pressured to enroll immediately as he
was told, “If you want guaranteed classes, you should sign up now.”Further, Pablo, Lucero and
Sergio expressed pressure to enroll by receiving numerous telephone calls until they met with a
representative in person. Based on participant experiences, it appears aggressive and persistent
recruitment strategies were used to influence individuals to enroll.
Opposite to negative experiences described above, three of nine participants described the
recruitment practices they experienced to be honest and pleasant. Bernice revealed she contacted
the institution to inquire about the pharmaceutical technician program. The institution followed
up by phone and email to determine her enrollment interest, “but it was never pounding. It
wasn‟t like they were a collection agency, every five minutes trying to call you. No, it wasn‟t
like that at all.” In this case, the participant felt a representative simply called to follow up on her
decision to attend. Further, Michelle also felt there was no pressure to attend and stated, “I
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 72
approached them… I don‟t remember them being very encouraging.” In Michelle‟s case, she
feels there was no need for representatives to use recruitment strategies as she contacted them.
Lastly, Andres contacted the institution to visit the campus and did not feel pressured to attend.
Some participants reported experiencing aggressive recruiting strategies while others did
not. Table 4 summarizes these experiences.
Table 4
Summary of Recruitment Strategies
Pseudonym
Aggressive
Strategies
Non-aggressive
Strategies
Bernice X
Andres X
Michelle X
Pablo X
Lucero X
Cristobal X
Mario X
Ruby X
Sergio X
Persuasive recruitment strategies related to job placement were also used to influence
students to enroll at the institution. All nine participants were told they would receive help
finding a job once they completed their programs. Representatives often told potential students
they were guaranteed a job after they graduated. Cristobal was persuaded to enroll by being told,
We‟ll help you find a job, getting you in, interviewing techniques and other aspects that
can help you find a job. There was that guaranteed comfort that they were telling me
you‟re going to get a job right after your graduate.
Another participant was told it was very easy for the institution to find employment that pays
well by the time they graduate. Sergio was comforted to learn, “They can find me a job at all
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 73
these top companies.” Similarly, Pablo was told the medical billing field was booming and he
would have no problem finding employment. Pablo was also told he would receive help finding
employment once he graduated. Discussing job placement with students was a common
recruitment strategy for-profit representatives used to influence students to enroll to the
institution. Two of the nine participants were guaranteed employment once they completed their
respective programs. During the enrollment process, Sergio was told the for-profit college works
with high profile companies “on the Forbes top 500 list.” He was also told he would be “paid
well… between $75,000 and $90,000 (annual salary).” Similarly, Lucero was promised
employment: “
I was promised a job once I finished… they tell you, you won‟t graduate without a job.
At this point, you‟re like “wow this is great.” I‟m getting an education done, and I‟m
getting a job right after. I don‟t have to worry about anything.
Participants expressed help with job placement made them feel comfortable investing money into
their education by taking out loans to cover the cost of tuition. However, job placement
assistance did not convince them to attend the for-profit career or technical college.
In summary, data analysis found all participants contacted in the intuition via phone or
via email for more information. A fast approach to the traditional college system highly
influenced the participants to attend a for-profit career or technical college. Further, some
participants experienced negative recruitment practices by representatives while others did not.
Lastly, job placement assistance was a recruitment strategy used to encourage all nine
participants to enroll, and all nine reported that it made the students comfortable to attend the
institution.
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 74
Job Placement Findings
In the previous section, we saw that all nine students were promised job placement. How
well did the career or technical colleges deliver on this promise? Data analysis indicates the
institution did not completely follow through on the job placements promised during recruitment
and enrollment. In fact, while two participants ultimately chose not seek job placement
assistance from the institution, and while three of nine participants received minimal job
placement assistance from their career or technical college, not one participant actually obtained
a job through his or her institution.
As previously mentioned, Sergio was told he would receive help with job placement;
however, he received minimal assistance. According to Sergio, the help he received was not as
promised. He was given employment leads that paid minimum wage, not the $75,000 to $90,000
salary he was assured during enrollment. Sergio believes he was misled as the salary of potential
jobs did not match the salary discussed during enrollment. Further, Pablo was given little help
with potential employment leads. He stated the institution made a few phone calls for him and
was able to obtain a few interviews but “Nothing has happened yet. Nothing has panned out
fully. Not sure if they hyped it up in the beginning.” Although Pablo has not found employment,
Pablo believes the institution has attempted to help him find employment. Nevertheless, Pablo is
contemplating whether the institution exaggerated help securing employment. Lastly, Mario
obtained a job interview with help from the institution but encountered a negative experience.
Mario was humiliated during the interview, as he was told “No, no, no! This isn‟t anything I was
looking for. You can‟t expect to get a job anywhere with this kind of work.” The interviewer
baffled Mario, as he was told by the for-profit institution “you‟re perfect for the job.” He later
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 75
learned he was only given a job interview as a favor to the representative. Due to this experience,
he no longer wanted assistance from the institution and relied on himself to find employment.
Four participants did not receive any assistance at all finding employment. Lucero stated
that a representative of her institution merely contacted to inquire about her employment status,
“They just wanted to know whether or not I was working in the field. What they tell you at the
beginning, it wasn‟t very accurate… The moment I told them I needed a job, they weren‟t very
helpful.” When Lucero asked the institution for help, she was asked “Have you tried to find
jobs?” Lucero realized, “At first they‟re very sweet and very helpful. At the end, they‟re very
short, like they just want to cut you (off) right away.” Ruby was also disappointed and described
the job placement assistance as “a total joke.” Moreover, Cristobal left the institution a year after
enrolling and, when asked if he believes the institution would have helped him find employment,
he stated “No, I can guarantee that they would not have helped me because they did not help my
close friend find a job, and he was actually guaranteed a job.” Further, Michelle stated she was
promised a job during enrollment but, when asked if she was given any help finding
employment, she said, “No, not at all.”
As mentioned earlier, two participants did not solicit job placement assistance from their
respective colleges. Although Bernice completed the Pharmaceutical Technician program, due to
legal issues (her DUI) she could not be licensed in her chosen field of study and, thus, did not
seek job placement assistance. Further, Andres completed a program for Automotive Repair and
says he was told he would have received job placement assistance if he had needed it but,
because he found employment on his own, “I didn‟t really use them after I graduated.”
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 76
All nine participants were told they would receive employment assistance. Most either
received no help, were not satisfied with the help they received, or did not seek help in the first
place. Table 5 summarizes job placement findings.
Table 5
Summary of Job Placement Findings
Pseudonym
Told They Would
Receive Help
Dissatisfied
with Help
Received
No Help
Did Not
Want
Help
Bernice X X
Andres X X
Michelle X X
Pablo X X
Lucero X X
Cristobal X X
Mario X X
Ruby X X
Sergio X X
Findings demonstrate all nine participants were told upon enrollment that they would
receive help with job placement; some were even guaranteed a job. However, seven of nine
participants were highly disappointed with the job placement assistance they received. Three of
the seven received help that not match the expectation they had upon enrollment. The remaining
four of the seven participants were disillusioned, as they were guaranteed help finding
employment but did not receive any help. Finally, two of the nine participants did not solicit help
due to personal reasons or because they did not need job placement assistance. It is important to
note that not one participant found employment as a result of the career or technical colleges‟
placement efforts.
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 77
Employment Status
As previously mentioned, not one participant found employment through assistance from
their career or technical college. Rather, participants found employment on their own. The
majority of participants are employed in fields unrelated to their areas of study. In fact, only two
participants are employed in the field they studied, while one participant remains unemployed.
Lucero attended a for-profit career or technical college to become a medical assistant and
is now an office assistant for a public high school. Sergio attended college to become a graphic
designer but was given minimum wage job leads by the institution. He was forced to look
outside of his intended area of study and found employment in Insurance Claims. Mario, who
also went to school for graphic design, was only able to find a job as a part-time photographer.
Michelle is employed in the advertisement industry instead of the graphic design field she
studied. Bernice is a manager for a solar company, rather than a pharmaceutical technician as she
intended; however, this could be related to personal reasons. Cristobal has a part-time job as an
office clerk, unrelated to the culinary industry, which was his original plan. Further, Andres
found employment in his area of study as an auto mechanic repair technician. However, he
obtained the position without any assistance from his institution. Similarly, Ruby did not receive
job placement assistance but is employed in her area of study as a graphic designer. Lastly, one
participant is still looking for employment in his field but has been unsuccessful.
Most participants did not receive help finding employment. Thus, many participants were
forced to look for employment outside of their intended field of study. Table 6 summarizes field
of study, employment status and current occupation.
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 78
Table 6
Summary of Employment Status
Pseudonym Area of Study Employment
Status
Occupation Employed in
Field of Study
Bernice Pharmaceutical Tech. Employed Solar Manager No
Andres Car Repair & Painter Employed Car Repair & Painter Yes
Michelle Graphic Design Employed Advertisement No
Pablo Medical Billing Unemployed Not Applicable No
Lucero Medical Assist Employed Office Manager No
Cristobal Culinary-Chef Employed Office Clerk No
Mario Graphic Design Employed Photographer No
Ruby Graphic Design Employed Graphic Designer Yes
Sergio Graphic Design Employed Insurance Claims No
In the end, participant job placement expectations did not match reality. All nine
participants were told they would receive help finding employment once they graduated;
however, only three participants received help. The help they did receive did not match what
they were initially promised. Further, only two of nine participants are employed in their field of
study, six participants are employed but in a field unrelated to their program of study, and one
participant is still looking for employment.
Findings Explained by Stanton-Salazar ’s Theory of Social Capital
Stanton-Salazar (2011) discusses three important elements about social capital:
institutional agents, socialization into discourse and social stratification. An institutional agent
has a hierarchal position that can provide valuable resources for students. Socialization is the
process where individuals learn discourse (affluence of knowledge) to interact within their social
position. Social stratification is the reproduction of social inequalities among individuals. Social
capital was observed during interviews with participants. It is important to note that each
participant was a first-generation college student.
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 79
Institutional Agent
An element of social capital was observed when an institutional agent recommended that
Ruby attend a for-profit career and technical college rather than a four-year non-profit university.
For example, Ruby attended a continuation high school to recover missed high school credits.
She received a compliment by her teacher about her artwork “Your artwork is similar to graphic
art. I think you would be a good candidate to attend” a for-profit career or technical college.
Ruby‟s teacher, an institutional agent within her social network, used their position of authority
to provide college information to Ruby by encouraging her to attend a for-profit institution.
Moreover, Pablo was also encouraged by an institutional agent, a social worker, to attend a for-
profit institution. Pablo was told, “The program won‟t take long, so I searched for programs
online.” Pablo‟s social worker provided him information to attend a for-profit career college.
Socialization of Discourse
Bernice revealed that, before attending a for-profit career college, she attended a
community college where she did not receive help and “It was just a struggle, it was a longer
process, but the college I attended (a for-profit career college), it was pretty much straight
forward. They helped you; they would schedule you and hold your hands” through the college
process. Since Bernice was the first person in her family to attend college, she lacked
socialization into discourse about the college process which led Bernice to find college
scheduling difficult. Further, lack of socialization into college discourse was observed in
Cristobal‟s case when he revealed that he was unaware of the benefits of attending a four-year
university. Cristobal stated, “I did know the difference between a for-profit college and a
university like UC Riverside. I didn‟t grow up talking about stuff like that.”Cristobal‟s lack of
socialization into the discourse about four-year universities was observed during the interview.
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 80
Additionally, Mario was also socialized by a peer to attend a for-profit career or technical
college. His friend invited him to an event. Mario stated, “My best friend invited me to go. I
didn‟t know much about it so I went.”Mario‟s friend provided him discourse to attend a for-
profit career or technical college.
Social Stratification
Social stratification explains how an individual remains in a certain social class. For
example, Lucero followed the similar educational path as a relative by attending the same for-
profit career college. Lucero stated, “I saw my cousin going to that college and having a career,
so I wanted to do it too.”Lucero was socialized into discourse about for-profit career colleges by
learning from a relative that attending a for-profit career college is a good educational choice.
Findings Explained by Chung ’s For-profit Choice
Chung‟s (2012) for-profit choice framework asserts that for-profit choice is related to
characteristics of both parents and students. Characteristics such as proximity, socio-economic
status and parent involvement explain the reason students choose to attend for-profit institutions.
According to Chung, for-profit choice is influenced by external factors, rather than internal
factors. Chung‟s for-profit choice framework was found during the interviews with participants.
Proximity
The study found that Mario attended a for-profit technical college because it was close to
his place of residence. A friend invited him to attend a for-profit college information event.
Mario met a representative who informed him that a campus was near his home. Mario found
that the short distance between his home and the campus was convenient. Mario stated, “When I
enrolled to college, I didn‟t have a car, so, since it was close to my house, I thought it would be
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 81
easier for me to go to school.” Proximity influenced Mario to attend a for-profit career or
technical college.
Socio-Economic Status
Chung (2012) stated that having a low socio-economic background is related to for-profit
choice. During the interview, Michelle and Andres disclosed that they came from a low
socioeconomic background. Michelle stated, “My parents don‟t make much money.” According
to Chung‟s for-profit choice framework, Michelle‟s background is related to the choice she made
to attend a for-profit career or technical college. Additionally, during the interview Andres
revealed that he qualified for Free Application of Federal Student Aid, indicating he came from a
low-income background. Andres‟s background explains one reason he chose to attend a for-
profit career or technical college.
Parental Involvement
Another characteristic that influences students to attend a for-profit institution is parent
involvement. This is consistent with observations made during the interviews with participants.
For instance, Lucero revealed that she came from a single-parent household and stated “my mom
was never home so I never talked to her about school stuff.”
Summary
The purpose of the study was to learn about student experiences related to recruitment
and job placement at for-profit career or technical colleges. As a result of answering research
questions, five themes were discovered. First, all participants initiated contact with the institution
either by internet or telephone. As a result, each participant was invited to visit the campus to
meet a representative. Second, it was also discovered that participants wanted a short educational
program. Participants were not interested in a curriculum that was not part of their area of
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 82
interest. Participants also believed the curriculum offered by a public non-profit institution would
prolong attaining their career goals. A faster approach to college was highly influential in the
decision to attend a for-profit institution. Third, some participants experienced negative
recruitment practices by representatives. These participants believed representatives were
aggressive and told them what they wanted to hear, such as the benefits of attending the
institution and promises of employment upon completion. By way of comparison, other
participants experienced non-aggressive recruiting approaches. They believed the institutions
called to follow up on their interest or decision to attend. Further, it was discovered that job
placement assistance was a recruitment strategy used to encourage all participants to enroll, as it
made students comfortable with their decision to attend a for-profit institution. Fourth, findings
demonstrate all nine participants were told upon enrollment that they would receive help with job
placement; some were even guaranteed a job. However, not one participant found employment
as a result of their institution‟s commitment to help participants find a job as promised during
enrollment. Job placement expectations did not match services received. Lastly, the actual
employment status of participants does not reflect their job placement expectations. Only two
participants are employed in the field they studied. The remaining six participants are employed
in fields unrelated to their areas of study and one participant remains unemployed. All of
participants found employment independent of their for-profit career or technical colleges.
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 83
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
The aim of the study was to learn about student experiences related to job placement and
recruitment at for-profit career or technical colleges. The study was guided by two research
questions.
Research question 1 asked, “How do students describe experiences at for-profit career or
technical colleges during the recruitment process?”Findings demonstrated participants initiated
contact with the institution. Participants sought fast postsecondary education after high school
with the goal of finding gainful employment in a particular field. Further, recruitment strategies
varied. Some for-profit career or technical colleges relied on aggressive recruitment strategies to
ensure students enrolled, while other institutions relied on less aggressive approaches.
Regardless of recruitment method used, each participant was told s/he would receive help from
his/her respective college finding employment. Participants were comforted to learn they would
receive job placement assistance. However, this was not the sole reason participants chose to
attend a for-profit career or technical college. Rather, the students were attracted to for-profit
career or technical colleges‟ fast-paced educational programs geared toward employability.
Research question 2 asked, “How do students describe experiences at for-profit career or
technical colleges regarding job placement?”The study found each participant was told s/he
would receive help finding employment yet the study also revealed that not one participant found
employment as a result of the institution‟s assistance with job placement. The study also
discovered only two participants were employed in the field they studied. The remaining
participants were employed in unrelated fields, and one participant is still searching for
employment.
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 84
Discussion of Findings
Many for-profit career or technical colleges use recruitment strategies to influence
students to attend their institution. This study‟s findings were consistent with the literature. For-
profit career or technical colleges rely on bold and aggressive recruitment practices (Harkin, n.d).
The study revealed for-profit career or technical colleges boasted about their on-campus
technology and contacted students several times to urge them to enroll. Participants believed
attending a for-profit institution was a wise educational decision and were told they would
receive help finding employment. Participants believed attending a for-profit career or technical
college was a secure educational option due to job placement assurance.
Moreover, study findings suggested students were influenced by the promises of job
placement during recruitment. Guarantees of employment assistance made participants feel
comfortable in their decision to attend a for-profit career or technical college; however, that was
not the primary reason students chose to enroll. The primary reason students chose to enroll was
due to for-profit career and technical colleges‟ fast educational approach that bypasses the
traditional curriculum of non-profit two-year institutions (Deming et al., 2013). Ultimately,
participants wanted to attend a for-profit institution because they wanted to secure employment
through rapid educational programs.
Most students continue education after high school to increase employability and
potential earning power (Hentschke et al., 2010). This desire to increase employability is
consistent with this study‟s findings. In particular, the study found participants sought fast-pace
programs that did not require general education courses traditional non-profit college programs
required. Rather, students wanted to reach their goal of employment quicker. However, most
participants felt misled as they were made to believe they would receive help from their career or
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 85
technical college finding a job once they graduated. Only two participants out of nine are
employed in their chosen field of study. The study shows participants received minimal or no
help with job placement nor are the participants employed in career they intended. Based on
study findings, prospective student should enroll with caution as it appears for-profit institutions‟
students are unlikely to find employment in their field of study
Limitations
The study encountered several limitations. First, to obtain student experiences from
individuals who attended for-profit institutions, the snowball sampling method was used. This
method was challenging because the researcher was forced to rely on participants to obtain
additional participants to conduct interviews for the study. Second, lack of interest presented a
limitation. A participant was referred to the researcher by a participant and was willing to
complete the interview, but was indifferent about the study; thus, answers were short. The
interview lasted only 15 minutes because the participant was eager to end the interview quickly.
Third, participants dropped out of the study. A participant who initially agreed to take part in the
interview later opted not to participate. Another participant also agreed to participate but later
became unreachable to complete the interview. Lastly, little empirical research on for-profit
career and technical colleges is another limitation of the study (Iloh & Tierney, 2014). Despite
limitations, important data was gathered.
Implications for Practice
Based on study findings, there are four implications for practice. The following two
implications include solutions based on Stanton-Salazar‟s (2011) social capital theory and
Chung‟s (2012) for-profit choice framework. First, since each participant attended a for-profit
career or technical college after completing high school, it is important for practice high school
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 86
leaders to implement a discussion with their students of all higher education options including
traditional non-profit college trajectories, for-profit degree-granting institutions, and for-profit
career and technical colleges. The reason high school leaders should implement this type of
discussion is that some students do not inherit social capital from their upbringing; thus, it is
necessary to bypass social capital and provide students with this information to make wise
educational choices. For example, Cristobal was unaware of the benefits of attending a four-year
university versus a for-profit career college. Having a discussion with high school students about
their educational options may help students make better, or at least more-informed, educational
choices.
Study findings indicated that participants intentionally sought quick educational training
programs. Informing students about fast-pace training programs, such as two-year non-profit
certificated programs that offer the same emphasis of study as for-profit career or technical
colleges offer but at a much lower cost is salient information students need to make informed
educational decisions. However, it is equally important to disseminate information to students
about the difference between for-profit institutions and non-profit institutions, including their
advantages and disadvantages. This information would greatly assist students make appropriate
educational decisions, especially those who lack social capital to understand the benefits of a
non-profit four-year institution versus short for-profit educational option. The path of least
resistance might not be the wisest option, as demonstrated in Sergio‟s case: he chose a fast
educational training program but was only able to find a minimum wage job upon graduation.
Second, it is crucial for high school leaders to reach out to parents of students who are
first-generation college students. Many students who are first-generation come from
disadvantaged backgrounds. It is especially important to reach out to this population because
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 87
Chung (2012) asserts that the socioeconomic status of a student could influence his/her decision
to attend a for-profit institution. This is consistent with Michelle. She came from an
economically disadvantaged background, which made her vulnerable to attend a for-profit career
or technical institution. To bypass social capital, informing students and parents from vulnerable
populations will help students make informed educational decisions.
Third, if for-profit career or technical colleges over-promise potential students help with
employment and fail to assist them, policies should be enacted to protect them from this practice.
Students should have access to an online complaint forum managed by the US Department of
Education to file complaints for deceptive practices during enrollment or career placement
(Harkin, n.d). Lastly, for-profit career or technical colleges should be mandated to publicize
accurate employment data. According to Senator Harkin (n.d.), transparency should be enhanced
by collecting accurate information and establishing a standard method for calculating job
placement rates. Similarly, Deming et al. (2013) suggest strengthening institutional disclosure
requirements to allow students to make independent decisions. Transparency of data would
greatly benefit prospective students.
These implications for practice will help potential students decide which educational path
is best suited for their educational goals. High school leaders‟ dissemination of information to
students and parents, specifically towards first-generation and minority student populations,
would allow students to make a wise college decisions. Further, strict policies to prohibit the
over-promise of employment services to students will prevent students from being misled about
employment opportunities. Lastly, mandating for-profit career or technical colleges to present
transparent employment data will allow students to base decisions on reliable information.
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 88
Suggestions for Further Research
To further understand student experiences at for-profit career or technical colleges further
research is needed to better ascertain the reason(s) students are not employed in the area they
studied. It would also be beneficial to research the level of debt students incur to determine
whether the benefits outweigh the costs of attending a for-profit career or technical colleges, as
most participants from the study are not employed in the profession they studied. It would be
equally important to interview for-profit career or technical college leaders to understand the
reason students were told they would receive help finding employment but were not provided
such assistance. Interviewing representatives who have worked for or currently work at a for-
profit career or technical college would expand research on recruitment and job placement
methods from an institutional point of view. Two participants from this study worked at the for-
profit institution they attended and were able to provide rich data to understand recruitment
practices; learning from additional for-profit career or technical college employees would
enhance the literature. Lastly, expanding research to other for-profit career or technical colleges
across the United States would be valuable to understand similarities and differences across
states.
Conclusion
The purpose of the study was to explore and understand student experiences related to
recruitment and job placement at for-profit career or technical colleges. Participants sought
postsecondary education to increase employability, made first contact with the institutions, and
intentionally sought fast-pace educational programs. Most participants experienced aggressive
recruitment strategies and were told their institution would provide employment assistance.
Participants were comforted by the idea that they would receive help finding a job. However,
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 89
participants did not receive help with employment as assured by their career or technical
colleges‟ representatives.
While most participants had a negative experience at the for-profit institution they
attended, not every participant shared a similar experience. For-profit career or technical colleges
can be beneficial to some students. Evidence of success was shown by two participants who
found employment in their field of study. Students should make educational decisions based on
data independent of information for-profit representatives provide potential students.
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 90
References
Alexander, B. C., Garcia, V., Gonzalez, L. & O‟Brien, D. O. (2007). Barriers in the transfer for
Hispanic and Hispanic immigrant students. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education,6(2),
174-184.
Apollo Incorporated. (2015) Apollo Group Inc. Retrieved from
http://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/for_profit_report/PartII/Apollo.pdf
Association for Career and Technical Education. (2014). What is career and technical education?
Retrieved from https://www.acteonline.org/general.aspx?id=120#.VbgVRflViko
Bailey, Badway & Gumport. (2005).Bailey, T., Badway, N., & Gumport, P. J. (2005). For-profit
higher education and community colleges. The Catalyst, 34(1), 9.
Bennett, D. L., Lucchesi, A. R., & Vedder, R. K. (2010). For-Profit Higher Education: Growth,
Innovation and Regulation. Center for College Affordability and Productivity (NJ1).
Best, E. & Best, J. (2014). Forget Gainful Employment. For-Profits Should Restructure Instead.
The Chronicle of Higher Education. April 4, 2014 A33.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and
research for the sociology of education. New York: Greenwood, 241-258.
Cellini, S. R. (2012). For-Profit higher education: an assessment of costs and benefits. National
Tax Journal, 65(1), 153-179.
Cellini, S. R., & Chaudhary, L. (2011). The labor market returns to a private two-year college
education. George Washington University, working paper (April).
Chung, A. S. (2012). Choice of for-profit college. Economics of Education Review, 31(6), 1084-
1101. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2012.07.004
Chung, A. (2008). The effects of for-profit college training on earnings.
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 91
Coleman, J., & Vedder, R. (2008). For-Profit Education in the United States: A Primer. Center
for College Affordability and Productivity (NJ1).
College Finder. (2014). What is college open enrollment? Retrieved from
http://www.collegefinder.org/what-is-college-open-enrollment/
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. (2012). Private student loans. Retrieved from
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201207_cfpb_Reports_Private-Student-Loans.pdf
Corbin, J. M., 1942, & Strauss, A. L. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Cornelius-White, J., Garza, A. C. & Hoey, A. T. (2004). Personality, family satisfaction and
demographic factors that help Mexican American students succeed academically. Journal
of Hispanic Higher Education, 3(3), 270-283.
Cornell, B. (2010). An Analysis of Taxpayer Funding Provided for Post-Secondary Education:
For-profit and Not-for-profit Institutions. Charles River Associates. Retrieved from
http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/427600/8541490/1284474481677/TotalTaxpayerCos
t_Sept09.pdf?token=sEyAERHEEpJPZr4nhEs3yqPshtE%3D
Coulson, A. (1999) Market education: The unknown history. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Deming, D. J., Goldin, C.& Katz, L. (2012). The for-profit postsecondary school sector: Nimble
critters or agile predators? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(1), 139-64.
Deming, D. J., Goldin, C. & Katz, L. (2013).For-profit colleges. Future of Children, 23(1), 137-
163.
Devry University. (2015). Academics. Retrieved from http://www.devry.edu/
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 92
Donoghue, F. (2011, March 28). For-profit colleges‟ dubious statistics. The Chronicle of Higher
Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/for-profit-colleges-
dubious-statistics/28999
Durbin, D. (2015, May 7). Durbin Takes Case Against For-Profit Colleges to Senate Floor
[Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzBSki6W7Fw
Farrell, E. F. (2003, May 3). For-profit colleges see rising minority enrollments. Chronicle of
Higher Education. Retrieved from https://chronicle.com/article/For-Profit-Colleges-See-
Rising/25486
Great Schools Partnership. (2014). Student outcomes. Retrieved from
http://edglossary.org/student-outcomes/
Hanford, E. (2014, February 13). The case against for-profit colleges and universities. American
Public Radio, retrieved from
http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/tomorrows-college/phoenix/case-
against-for-profit-schools.html
Harding, F. J. (2012). For-profit colleges, educational attainment, and labor market outcomes.
Retrieved from http://www.psc.isr.mich.edu/research/project-detail/34723
Harkin, T. (2012, July 30). Harkin: Report Reveals Troubling Realities of For-Profit Schools
[Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tK3MIHQztK8
Harkin, T. (n.d.). For profit higher education: The failure to safeguard the federal investment and
ensure student success (Executive summary). Retrieved from
http://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/for_profit_report/ExecutiveSummary.pdf
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 93
Harkin, T. (n.d). Documents referred to in Harkin floor statement recruiting tactics. Retrieved
from http://www.protectstudentsandtaxpayers.org/wp-
content/uploads/2015/02/Documents_HarkinFloorSpeech_May2011.pdf
Hentschke, G. C. (2010). Innovations in business models and organizational cultures: The for-
profit sector.” Unpublished paper, USC Rossier School of Education, June
Hentschke, G. C., Lechuga. V. M. & Tierney, W. G. (2010). For-profit colleges and universities.
Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Higher Education Compliance Alliance. (2014). Compliance matrix. Retrieved from
http://www.higheredcompliance.org/matrix/
Hossler, D., & Gallagher, S.K. (1987). Studying student college choice: A three-phase model and
the implications for policymakers. College and University,62(3): 207-221.
Iloh, C., & Tierney, W. G. (2013). A COMPARISON OF for-profit and community colleges‟
ADMISSIONS PRACTICES. College and University, 88(4), 2-12. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/1398824375?accountid=14749
Iloh, C., & Tierney, W. G. (2014). Using ethnography to understand twenty-first century college
life. Human Affairs, 24(1), 20-39.
Iloh, C., & Toldson, I. A. (2013). Black students in 21
st
century higher education: A closer look
at for-profits and higher education. The Journal of Negro Education, 82 (3), 205-212.
Imagine America Foundation. (2013). FactBook A profile of career and universities. Reston,
VA.
Johnson, R. H. & Chapman, D. W. (1979). An assessment of college recruitment literature: Does
the high school senior understand it? Research in Higher Education. 11(4): 309-319.
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 94
Jonassen, D. H., & Hernandez-Serrano, J. (2002). Case-based reasoning and instructional design:
Using stories to support problem solving. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 50(2), 65-77. doi:10.1007/BF02504994
Kaplan College. (2015). Retrieved from https://www.kaplancollege.com/about/
Luang, K., & Weinstein, R. (2012). Evaluating student outcomes at for-profit colleges. The
National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from
http://www.nber.org/papers/w18201
Lederman, D. (2007, February 26). Tussling over transfer credits. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved
from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/02/26/transfer
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
McDonough, P.M., & Fann, A. J. (2007). The study of inequity. In P.J. Gumport (Ed.), Sociology
of higher education: Contributions and their contexts. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
McWhirter, E. H., Torres, D. M., Salgado, S., & Valdez, M. (2007). Perceived barriers and
postsecondary plans in Mexican American and white adolescents. Journal of Career
Assessment, 15(1), 119-138. doi:10.1177/1069072706294537
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (2nd ed.).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). Students attending for-profit postsecondary
institutions: Demographics, enrollment, characteristics, and six-year outcomes. (2012-
173). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012173.pdf
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 95
National Conference of State Legislature. (2013, July 3). For-profit colleges and universities.
Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/for-profit-colleges-and-
universities.aspx
O‟Connor, N., Hammack, F. M., & Scott, M. A. (2010). Social capital, financial knowledge, and
Hispanic student college choices. Research in Higher Education, 51(3), 195-219.
doi:10.1007/s11162-009-9153-8
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand, Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Rosenthal, C. (2012, October 25). The long and controversial history of for-profit colleges.
Bloomberg News. Retrieved from http://www.startribune.com/the-controversial-history-
of-for-profit-colleges/175991601/
Ruch, R. S. (2001). Higher Ed, Inc. : The Rise of the For-Profit University. Baltimore, MD,
USA: Johns Hopkins University Press. Retrieved from http://www.ebrary.com
Seiden, M. J. (2009). For-profit colleges deserve some respect. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 55(41), A80. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/214645897?accountid=14749
SR Education Group. (2015). Understanding Accreditation. Retrieved from
http://www.collegesanddegrees.com/accreditation
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the socialization of
racial minority children and youths. Harvard Educational Review, 67(1), 1.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2011; 2010). A social capital framework for the study of institutional
agents and their role in the empowerment of low-status students and youth. Youth &
Society, 43(3), 1066-1109. doi:10.1177/0044118X10382877
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 96
The Art Institute of California. (2015). Retrieved from https://www.artinstitutes.edu/los-angeles
The Education Trust. (2010). Subprime opportunity: The unfulfilled promise of for-profit
colleges and universities. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED513339.pdf
Toldson, I. A., & Iloh, C. (2013). Black students in 21st century higher education: A closer look
at for-profit and community colleges. The Journal of Negro Education, 82(3), 205-212.
Tumblin, R. S. (2002). The College Choice Process of Non-traditional Students. (Electronic
Thesis or Dissertation). Retrieved from https://etd.ohiolink.edu/
Turner, N. (2011). Do students profit from for-profit education? Estimating the returns to
postsecondary education with tax data. Selected Works. Abstract retrieved from
http://works.bepress.com/nicholas_turner/6/
Watkins, B. L. (1991). A quite radical idea: The invention and elaboration of collegiate
correspondence study. The foundations of American distance education: A century of
collegiate correspondence study. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt
Weisbrod, B. A., Ballou, J. P., & Ash, E. D. (2008). The two-good framework: Revenue, mission,
and why colleges do what they do. In Mission and money: Understanding the university.
Chapters 4-5. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
United States Congressional Research Service. (2007). Institutional eligibility for participation in
Title IV student aid programs under the Higher Education Act: Background and
reauthorization issues. (RL33909). Retrieved from http://constructionlitmag.com/wp-
content/uploads/2012/11/3169.pdf
United States Department of Education. (2010, September 13). Student loan default rates.
Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/student-loan-default-rates-
increase-0
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 97
United States Department of Education. (2012, September 28). First official three-year student
loan default rates published. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/first-
official-three-year-student-loan-default-rates-published
United States Department of Education. (2014). Accreditation in the United States. Retrieved
from http://www2.ed.gov/admins/finaid/accred/accreditation.html
United States Department of Education. (2014). Default. Retrieved from
https://fafsa.ed.gov/help/default.htm
United States Department of Education. (2014). What types of federal student loans are
available? Retrieved from http://studentaid.gov/types/loans
United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook
2011-2012. Retrieved from www.bls.gov/ooh/home.htm
United States Government Accountability office. (2010, May 4). For-profit colleges. Retrieved
fromhttp://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10948t.pdf
United States Government Accountability office. (2011, December7). Postsecondary Education.
Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/assets/590/586738.pdf
United Education Institute. (2015). Retrieved from http://www.uei.edu/
Van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive
pedagogy. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press.
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 98
Appendix A
Interview Protocol
Participant Interview Protocol
Institutions: ___________________________________________________________________
Participant: ____________________________________________________________________
Interviewer: ___________________________________________________________________
Introduction
You have been selected to speak with us today because you have been identified as someone
who has a great deal to share about educational experiences. The research project focuses on for-
profit institutions and student outcomes. The study does not aim to evaluate you as an individual
or the institution you attended but rather to learn more about student experiences at for-profit
institutions.
1. What motivated you to pursue post-high school education/training?
2. How did you discover private/for-profit colleges?
3. What attracted you to private/for-profit colleges?
4. Did you consider attending non-profit institutions? Why or why not?
5. What was the enrollment process like at private/for-profit?
6. How often did representatives communicate with you about enrolling?
7. What strategies did representatives use to encourage you to enroll in a program?
8. What factors influenced you most to attend your institution?
9. Did representative discuss job placement?
a. Was this important to you? Did this influence your decision to attend this college?
10. Upon enrollment, what career goals did have?
a. Do you feel you have accomplished these goals?
b. If so, in what ways?
c. If not, what kept you from reaching your career goals?
11. Upon enrollment, what were you expecting to gain from this institution?
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 99
a. Did your experience meet your expectations?
b. If so, in what ways?
c. If not, how?
12. Did you graduate from that institution?
a. If so, what contributed to the completion of the program?
b. If not, what contributed to the incompletion of the program?
13. Upon graduation,
a. What were you expecting to gain from this institution? Did your experience meet
your expectations?
b. If so, in what ways?
c. If not, how?
14. Are you currently employed?
a. If so, what is your current employment profession?
15. Tell me about your experience finding employment?
16. Did your college assist you with job placement?
a. If so, how was this done?
17. Does your current employment profession match your intended career goals after
attending a for-profit college?
18. Would you recommend this institution to a family member or friend?
a. If yes, why?
b. If not, why?
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 100
Appendix B
Information/Facts Sheet
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR EXEMPT NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
Student experience at for-profit career and technical colleges
You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Maria Jurado under the
supervision of Dr. Patricia Tobey at the University of Southern California because you have
attended a for-profit career and technical institution and are aged 18 and up. Research studies
include only people who voluntarily choose to take part. This document explains information
about this study. You should ask questions about anything that is unclear to you.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to explore and understand student experiences related to recruitment
and job placement at for-profit career and technical colleges.
PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to participate in a 45-60 minute audio-
taped interview. You do not have to answer any questions you don‟t want to; if you don‟t want to
be taped, handwritten notes will be taken.
ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
Your alternative is to not participate. Your relationship with your institution or the researcher
will not be affected whether or not you participate in this study.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential.
Your responses will be coded with a false name (pseudonym) and maintained separately. The
audio-tapes will be destroyed once they have been transcribed. The data will be stored on a
password protected computer in the researcher‟s office for three years after the study has been
completed and then destroyed.
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California‟s Human Subjects
Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research
studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects. When the results of the research are
published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable information will be used.
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact Principal
Investigator Maria Jurado at mjurado@usc.edu.
STUDENT EXPIENCES AT FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS 101
IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant or the
research in general and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to talk to someone
independent of the research team, please contact the University Park Institutional Review Board
(UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or
upirb@usc.edu.
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
An exploration of student experiences in a preparation program for online classes in the California community college system
PDF
An exploratory study on flipped learning and the use of self-regulation amongst undergraduate engineering students
PDF
College-educated immigrants' experiences in adult education career technical education programs
PDF
Creating opportunities for engagement and building community utilizing geek culture in a residential education department
PDF
The role of superintendents and district administrators in developing career technical education programs to assist students in becoming college‐ and career‐ready
PDF
The impact of the mindful method Youth Empowerment Seminar (YES!) on students' self-efficacy, self-regulation, and academic performance for becoming college- and career-ready
PDF
Self-perceptions of student identity in community college students with disabilities
PDF
Serving those who have served: the role of university career services in student veteran degree completion
PDF
An ecological systems perspective of long-term English learners (LTELs) and perceptions of their college readiness: a case study
PDF
Approaches to encouraging and supporting self-regulated learning in the college classroom
PDF
Struggles build character: the impact of developmental math and the psychological, social and cultural factors that influence Latino males' persistence in STEM
PDF
Examining the relationship between students’ pre-college experiences and outcomes in diversity courses
PDF
Validation matters - student experiences in online courses: a mixed method study
PDF
The role of district administrators in developing career technical education programs to assist students in becoming college- and career-ready
PDF
Examining the experiences of high school counselors when advising student athletes on the NCAA college going process
PDF
Assessing college and career readiness through the Senior Project program
PDF
First-generation college students: perceptions, access, and participation at urban university
PDF
The integration of academics into career-technical education in two California charter schools
PDF
The allocation of resources for career technical education programs that improve college and career readiness
PDF
Instruction informed by social cognitive theory: implementation with differently abled students
Asset Metadata
Creator
Jurado, Maria Martinez
(author)
Core Title
Student experiences at for-profit career and technical colleges
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
09/11/2015
Defense Date
08/25/2015
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
career and technical colleges,for-profit colleges,for-profit institutions,OAI-PMH Harvest
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Tobey, Patricia (
committee chair
), Crispen, Patrick (
committee member
), Yates, Kenneth (
committee member
)
Creator Email
mjurado@usc.edu,mjurado2@yahoo.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-177770
Unique identifier
UC11274542
Identifier
etd-JuradoMari-3897.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-177770 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-JuradoMari-3897.pdf
Dmrecord
177770
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Jurado, Maria Martinez
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
career and technical colleges
for-profit colleges
for-profit institutions