WASHINGTON—In an undercover investigation, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that for-profit colleges engaged in fraudulent and aggressive tactics. An investigator posing as a prospective student approached admissions offices of for-profit colleges. When the student asked to speak to financial aid counselors to go over the cost of the education, in many instances he was encouraged to first sign a commitment to enroll in the institutions.
In one school the admissions representative referred the investigator to his supervisor, who questioned the students’ courage.
“If you’re this hesitant to sign your admission paper work, maybe you’re not ready to take that step [to enroll in college]. You haven’t made this amount of an investment ever, especially in yourself. … What are you afraid of?” said the admissions officer before ripping up the prospective student’s application form. That and other multiple encounters were recorded by hidden camera and posted by the GAO on their website.
The GAO investigation footage adds to a growing discussion of the role of for-profit universities: their place in a society with a growing demand for education, the benefits or disadvantages to attending these institutions, and the cost of for-profit education not only to students but to taxpayers.
A report released by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), titled “The Return on Federal Investment in For-Profit Education: Debt Without a Diploma,” found that more than 95 percent of students at two-year for-profit schools and 93 percent at four-year for-profit schools took out student loans in 2007—as compared to 16.6 percent of students taking out loans at community colleges during the same period, or 44.3 percent at four-year public schools.
Harkin asserted in a Senate hearing last week that over the past three years, almost 2 million students have withdrawn from for-profit colleges, without degrees or certificates, but with debt that they are struggling to repay—debt that is not dischargeable in bankruptcy, and that can bar them from getting future student loans.
“Going to college should not be like going to a casino, where the odds are stacked against you,” said Harkin.
Proponents of for-profit colleges assert that for–profit institutions fill a market need, educating lower income students where four-year institutions admit primarily upper middle class students, while community colleges cannot accommodate the volume of students in the market.
For-profit colleges such as the University of Phoenix, Grand Canyon University, and Chancellor University offer students convenient schedules and online courses. And many students that have attended technical schools such as ITT Technical institute have received in-depth, hands-on training that have prepared them for future careers. Nevertheless, for-profit colleges receive criticism.
“The danger is a kind of fast foodization of higher education itself where low cost, convenience, and ease of finishing become values in themselves to the possible detriment to the things that only can be accomplished slowly and over time,” said Nicholas Burbules, professor of education at University of Illinois, in a Frontline investigation of for-profit colleges.
For-profit colleges cost up to six times more than community colleges, according to the Frontline report. According to the “The Return on Federal Investment in For-Profit Education: Debt Without a Diploma,” for-profit colleges are making record profits—16 companies produced $2.7 billion in profits in 2009.
Lawmakers are responsible for the development of policies to address the problems in for-profit and nonprofit colleges. The abundance of federal grant money for education may attract abusive practices.
However, lawmakers are divided in their approach to shaping education policy. Sen. Mike Enzi (R- Wyo.) criticized the Health, Education, Labor, and Pension Committee, for not looking at the issue holistically to evaluate education policies that affect both for-profit and nonprofit colleges.
“Students are taking on too much debt, defaults are too high, and students are having too much difficulty finding jobs, or completing their programs of study. … However, it’s naive to think that these problems are limited to just the for-profit sector,” said Enzi.
“We are working very hard to prove that we can instill the academic rigor and quality of education for the students that the school had not been delivering for many years,” said Michael Clifford, an entrepreneur who invests in failing universities, turning them into for-profit colleges, in the Frontline investigation.
In one school the admissions representative referred the investigator to his supervisor, who questioned the students’ courage.
“If you’re this hesitant to sign your admission paper work, maybe you’re not ready to take that step [to enroll in college]. You haven’t made this amount of an investment ever, especially in yourself. … What are you afraid of?” said the admissions officer before ripping up the prospective student’s application form. That and other multiple encounters were recorded by hidden camera and posted by the GAO on their website.
The GAO investigation footage adds to a growing discussion of the role of for-profit universities: their place in a society with a growing demand for education, the benefits or disadvantages to attending these institutions, and the cost of for-profit education not only to students but to taxpayers.
A report released by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), titled “The Return on Federal Investment in For-Profit Education: Debt Without a Diploma,” found that more than 95 percent of students at two-year for-profit schools and 93 percent at four-year for-profit schools took out student loans in 2007—as compared to 16.6 percent of students taking out loans at community colleges during the same period, or 44.3 percent at four-year public schools.
Harkin asserted in a Senate hearing last week that over the past three years, almost 2 million students have withdrawn from for-profit colleges, without degrees or certificates, but with debt that they are struggling to repay—debt that is not dischargeable in bankruptcy, and that can bar them from getting future student loans.
“Going to college should not be like going to a casino, where the odds are stacked against you,” said Harkin.
Proponents of for-profit colleges assert that for–profit institutions fill a market need, educating lower income students where four-year institutions admit primarily upper middle class students, while community colleges cannot accommodate the volume of students in the market.
For-profit colleges such as the University of Phoenix, Grand Canyon University, and Chancellor University offer students convenient schedules and online courses. And many students that have attended technical schools such as ITT Technical institute have received in-depth, hands-on training that have prepared them for future careers. Nevertheless, for-profit colleges receive criticism.
“The danger is a kind of fast foodization of higher education itself where low cost, convenience, and ease of finishing become values in themselves to the possible detriment to the things that only can be accomplished slowly and over time,” said Nicholas Burbules, professor of education at University of Illinois, in a Frontline investigation of for-profit colleges.
For-profit colleges cost up to six times more than community colleges, according to the Frontline report. According to the “The Return on Federal Investment in For-Profit Education: Debt Without a Diploma,” for-profit colleges are making record profits—16 companies produced $2.7 billion in profits in 2009.
Lawmakers are responsible for the development of policies to address the problems in for-profit and nonprofit colleges. The abundance of federal grant money for education may attract abusive practices.
However, lawmakers are divided in their approach to shaping education policy. Sen. Mike Enzi (R- Wyo.) criticized the Health, Education, Labor, and Pension Committee, for not looking at the issue holistically to evaluate education policies that affect both for-profit and nonprofit colleges.
“Students are taking on too much debt, defaults are too high, and students are having too much difficulty finding jobs, or completing their programs of study. … However, it’s naive to think that these problems are limited to just the for-profit sector,” said Enzi.
“We are working very hard to prove that we can instill the academic rigor and quality of education for the students that the school had not been delivering for many years,” said Michael Clifford, an entrepreneur who invests in failing universities, turning them into for-profit colleges, in the Frontline investigation.
