| sometimes don't pay enough attention to their core mission and are drawn into revenue seeking ventures (athletics, corporate partnerships). Interestingly enough, by the end of the study I came to understand that the "for-profit" status wasn't really what made these institutions different—it was their non-traditional approach to higher education.
Third, for-profits have effectively targeted the corporate audience. They do this by involving the corporations from the start in the planning and delivery of the degree programs. The for-profits understood from the beginning that there is a great deal of money spent on education and training in corporate America, and that traditional institutions often fail to adequately serve this market. The for-profits have been successful in convincing corporate America that they can deliver an educational program which is an individual benefit to their employees, and improves the productivity of the company.
When for profits reach into the 18–23 year old market, what new challenges do they face? Conversely, what are the challenges for non-profits with adult learners? The 18–23 year old market is harder for for-profits because of the developmental stage of the students. However, for those students who are already jumping into full-time work, for-profits may be a good alternative. For-profits will have to adjust their pedagogical model to some extent, because they have often depended on life experience as part of the curriculum. In a business course, how do you talk about management issues when you've only just begun to work? On the other hand, non-profits traditionally have had trouble serving adult learners because of inflexibility and rigid practices.
The metaphor ‘junkyard dogs’ is in your book’s discussion
|
|
of the culture and rhetoric of for-profits. Why? What are the gaps in higher education? What unconventional methods are for-profits using to address the gaps in higher ed? I used this term in the book because of the rebellious attitude toward traditional higher education many of the leaders of the for-profits display. They are aggressive and ready to take on any long-held belief with a counter
argument. The clear gaps addressed by for-profits are those of the adult learners, particularly first-generation college students. I've described above many of the methods, but should add that for-profits are generally less expensive than independent non-profit institutions, and take less time for students to complete a degree. The for-profits offer a different place and way to learn. In terms of place, they utilize technology extensively in distance learning and mixed or blended delivery courses so students can learn from home or work. Additionally, they have convenient in-person classrooms often in business parks, with week night classes. In terms of pedagogical approach, they employ adult learning theory methods emphasizing learning teams, studying one subject at a time, and a facilitation role for faculty.
[1]
Laureate: 62%, University of Phoenix: 52%; Education Management: 37%; CEC: 31%; Apollo Group: 30%—from http://chronicle.com/prm/weekly/v50
/i48/48a02601.htm (subscription required)
[2]
Eduventures estimates two-fifths of tuition revenues from fully online programs
comes from for-profit institutions. Cited in Blumenstyk, G. ( January 7, 2005). For-profit education: Online courses fuel growth. The Chronicle of Higher Education 51 (18): A11.
[3]
http://www.sloan-c.org/resources/survey.asp. The
expected average growth rate for online students for 2004 is 24.8%
|
PDF
version