Dear Reader,
Students that are trying to achieve the education that is needed for them to succeed should be able to do so without being cheated or tricked. For-profit education refers to educational institutions that are managed by non-public businesses that focus solely on financial gain. For-profit educational institutions are schools and/or colleges that function on the entire for-profit belief. Jon Marcus’s article, “Can For-Profit Colleges Rebound?”, talks about how for-profit education is becoming increasingly positive. Marcus continues discussing how there was a large drop in for-profit education and how that affected schools worldwide. Marcus ends with discussing the perks and benefits of for-profit education and how learners can use these benefits and perks. On the other hand, Brenna Ryan’s article, “Learners and a Teacher, For Profit,” talks about the dishonesty and trickery for-profit education uses to manipulate learners. Ryan continues discussing how for-profit educational institutions do not think about what the learners need. Ryan ends by discussing how all for-profit educational institutions care about is how much money they are receiving and how these institutions will go through anything and everything to get that money. For-profit educational institutions may provide benefits and perks to their learners, but they also tend to manipulate their learners, create debt that is difficult to overcome, be dishonest, and limit the opportunities for learners to get jobs.
First, most for-profit educational institutions do not require learners to take an entry exam before they are able to be accepted into the college. This makes it more difficult for the college to decide which courses each learner needs. In her article, Brenna Ryan states, “UU requires no diagnostic exam – even one for basic literacy – upon admission. For that reason, their open admission policy is ineffective, and students are often placed in classes that do not meet their needs” (Ryan 32). For example, if a student is not proficient in the English language, he or she may be put in a difficult English course that he or she will not understand, rather than an ESL course he or she can actually learn from. This may create unnecessary struggles for learners who do not quite understand the steps that they must take to fix their classes. Learners from other countries may not recognize they are being manipulated and tricked into giving up their money for classes they cannot learn in. Tricking students is unjust and unfair.
Next, there is a lack of job availability when it comes to learning at a for-profit educational institution. Students that go to school part-time and wish to have a full-time job as well are unable to find suitable jobs so they may earn some cash. In Phillip W. Magness’s article, “For-Profit Universities and the Roots of Adjunctification in US Higher Education,” he states, “Given that full-time positions continue to expand in absolute numbers, recent data trends point to a larger issue with the supply of academic labor. The number of job applicants continues to exceed the number of available full-time positions, even as the total number of full-time positions in many fields has more than doubled since 1970” (Magness 57). In this situation, students may have a harder time finding available jobs. Most students in college want to experience both college and the work field. But with the lack of available jobs, students are unable to explore and learn about the working field. This is not right. There should be more jobs available to students in college and students in general.
However, there are some perks and benefits when it comes to for-profit educational institutions. One of these benefits includes nanodegree programs, which are programs where a student can learn skills that are project-based, educational, and beneficial for the student. In his article, Jon Marcus states, “Such leading-edge work continues: for-profits are now experimenting with nanodegrees (Udacity), guarantees to students and employers (Triangle Tech Group, coding boot camps), and modular sequential courses (several vocational institutions)” (Marcus 50). For instance, the nanodegree programs may help students in the long run. Not only that, but these programs last a long time. Also, these programs are not at all as expensive as the original costs of the for-profit educational institutions. This specific nanodegree program and the other benefits have led non-profit colleges to merge and cooperate with for-profit colleges to achieve more student success.
Even so, due to the excessive costs to learn in for-profit educational institutions, students have become severely in debt. This debt is created with the sole intention to just take as much money from the students as possible. In William Beaver’s article, “Fraud in For-Profit Higher Education,” he states, “Low-income students are the most likely to default on loans and the debt incurred is not insignificant” (Beaver 278). In this situation, students that do not have enough money to pay for college will rely on loans to get them through their education. This forces the students into a debt that later, they will be unable to dig themselves out of. Not only is this wrong, but it is not fair to the students who seek an education. Education should not be affordable only to those who are wealthy. This can be considered as discrimination in a way, because those who are poor are unable to afford the proper education without going into debt.
On the contrary, two other perks of attending for-profit educational institutions are described as Graduation Funds and subscription models (Marcus 48). In his article, Jon Marcus states, “Some for-profits are encouraging persistence by changing the ways that students pay for school. Strayer University has established what it calls its Graduation Fund, which gives students one free course to be taken in the last year of their degree for every three they pay for and successfully complete” (Marcus 48). In this situation, students are given the perk of free courses without the need to pay for them. The catch, though, is that they must pay three times the amount and finish and pass the classes just to earn that one free course. Marcus also states, “Other for-profits offer subscription models – think Netflix – which let students pay a flat monthly fee and take as many or as few courses as they’d like. The faster they go, the cheaper their degrees” (Marcus 48). Moreover, there are limited, but available perks and benefits at certain for-profit educational institutions.
While this may be true, the cost of for-profit educational institutions is an excessive amount for learners who are seeking education to pay for. Learners are forced to pay large amounts of money for education that doesn’t necessarily help them in the long run. In her article, Brenna Ryan states, “At UU, after the learners are corralled, their retention becomes the goal, so the Dean told me to pass my failed learners. Their tuition dollars, borrowed from the U.S. Government, fund not only his extravagant lifestyle, but those of the university’s investors” (Ryan 31). Additionally, the fact that the staff of for-profit educational institutions use the money that they basically steal from learners to go on vacations, buy expensive additions to their classrooms, offices, and/or homes, and purchase other irrelevant items is completely ridiculous. The staff of for-profit educational institutions wrongfully use the money for themselves instead of using the money for the school like they should be. It is very upsetting that students are being manipulated into giving up money that is rightfully theirs in exchange for education that is, in the end, never given to them. These actions are illegal and for-profit educational institutions need to be stopped.
All in all, debt, limited jobs, and manipulation awaits those that dream of attending a for-profit educational institution, even if there are small benefits and perks that come with the for-profit education. Ryan claims that for-profit educational institutions should be illegal for the way that they deal with students and the money they steal from learners, whereas Marcus believes that for-profit schools can change their ways and help the students instead of stealing from them. If colleges continue their immoral ways, all it takes is one student to spread the word and form a protest.
Works Cited
Beaver, William. “Fraud in For-Profit Higher Education.” Soc, 2012, pp. 274-278.
Magness, Phillip W. “For-Profit Universities and the Roots of Adjunctification in US Higher Education.” Liberal Education, vol. 102, no. 2, 2016, pp. 50-59.
Marcus, Jon. “Can For-Profit Colleges Rebound?” Education Next, vol. 19, no. 1, 2019, pp. 44-50.
Ryan, Brenna. “Learners and a Teacher, For Profit.” Radical Teacher, vol. 93, 2012, pp. 29-34.
-- Ella Cinder
Comments
Post a Comment