For Profit Colleges

     Ross Wolfarth writes a compelling article on the weaknesses in or entire lack of oversight of for profit colleges and their aggressive enrollment practices. Wolfarth writes for PRwatch.org, a web project of the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD). CMD, according to their own website is “a non-profit investigative reporting group. Our reporting and analysis focus on exposing corporate spin and government propaganda”. The CMD, according to Wikipedia who is using CMD’s own website as a sourced, was started by environmental writer and political activist John Stauber in 1993.

     The reason for pointing out these facts will become clear at the end of this article. Overall, the piece Wolfarth did on for profit colleges is very well written and well referenced. It brings attention to the power of the lobbying arms of these colleges and shines a light on the faux-grass roots campaigns that they are using to gain favorable attention. PRwatch.org does a tremendous job of uncovering the spin of GAO reports and the sizable settlement amounts some of these companies have paid out that has otherwise gone unreported. A Frontline report “highlighting shady recruiting practices” is also mentioned, A report that I happened to have seen and the focus was on for profits like Kaplan and University of Phoenix targeting returning veterans looking to take advantage of the GI Bill. This is wonderful and purposeful reporting that seems to be “fighting the good fight”. And for the most part, PRwatch.org and CMD are.

     The problem with this particular report is the intricacies and complexities of how a for-profit college operates versus a state run institution are ignored. The diversity of lifestyles at a Kaplan or Phoenix school is something registrars at state schools would kill for. Many questions should have been asked that weren’t. How much debt is the average for profit college student carrying when they enter school as opposed to a traditional student? Compare age and job experience of both types of students. In a state run university, the vast majority of students start school at 18 with little to no work or life experience. They are living on their own for the first time having just left high school and their parents’ house. The first debt they usually incur is from the school loan. Few are working full time jobs. Even less are paying rent. Food cost is included, for the most part, with tuition plans. The job of a young student is just that, to be a student. They graduate, on average, after four years with a degree from an accredited and traditional college and go off to hopefully join the work force. Perhaps even in a field they have majored in, but not always. The degree is usually enough to get the foot in the door. What should be asked is whether or not there is a bias against graduates of online schools, or non-traditional for profit colleges. Could it be the reason it is less likely to achieve gainful employment is a stigma of Correspondence Schools of the past? Does the education seem less substantial to an employer if it comes from the University of Phoenix versus the University of New Hampshire? What are the core differences on these campuses that could affect these numbers? Take Hesser College in Manchester for example, day and night classes are offered due to the number of students that have full time jobs and can’t attend classes during the day. At any random sampling, you can find in a classroom people who are married, have children, work full time, have car payment, daycare expenses, mortgages, credit card payments, second jobs ...etc. All of these things are in conjunction with school and trying to get an education. Perhaps behaviors and lifestyles that kept a lot of these people from following the traditional college route in the first place have an effect on how loans are paid and whether “gainful employment” is obtained?

     At the beginning of this article, you read a quick curriculum vitae on PRwatch.org and CMD. The reason for this is for you to understand their roots in activism. It is a good thing to shine a light on corruption and to stand up for the “little guy”. It is understandable to want to overthrow the tyrant and free the serfs. The problem arises when the tyrant falls and the serfs are left outside the castle walls with no more protection and left to the wolves as it were. When one is focused on a cause, myopia can set in, and the big picture is missed. Essentially, it would be best if Wolfarth and PRwatch.org looked at this issue from every angle before sounding the trumpet to charge.