What are the Valid Issues with For-Profit Schools?

What are the valid issues some appear to have with for-profit schools? I'm referencing, of course, schools that are legitimately accredited. If a for-profit school and a not-for-profit school hold the same levels of accreditation (e.g., regional accreditation for the institution, and the appropriate national accreditation for individual fields of study), what are the valid issues that some have with the for-profit schools? By valid, I'm speaking not merely of some personal bias, but legitimate documentable academic concerns.

 

I think they serve a purpose at the doctoral level right now. Walden, Capella, NCU, et al fill the gap for non-traditional doctoral degrees that the traditional schools aren't filling.

 

One of my issues is the aggressive marketing techniques that some use (UoP mainly). It gives the perception that the school is a marketing machine as opposed to a school. Other then that I have no issues - LONG LIVE CAPITALISM!

 

I've taken undergraduate classes from three different RA online schools, one of which was public, and two of which were for-profit. The schools were AMU, Ashford, and CSU-Global. The most difficult and academically challenging was by far Ashford, followed by CSU-Global, followed by AMU. I never had any issues with academic rigor from any of the schools. Honestly, I think most issues with for-profit schools stem from reputation, recruiting practices, and perception issues (again, reputation). Academically, I've encountered no problems from for-profits, nor do I have any complaints.

That being said, I know you are specifically and only inquiring about academics. However, I would submit to you that many adults returning to school, for whom most for-profit programs are designed to accommodate, do so to gain better employment. Therefore, many of them are not drawn to these programs for academic quality, but for resume purposes. So, in the end, a for-profit college with a horrible reputation like UoP, although the academics might be on par with any other RA school, will typically not produce the hiring marketability that a reputable state school like ASU would. Therefore, when examining the effectiveness of online school choices, one must look beyond the academic quality or rigor, and research the actual reputation for hiring purposes. I only add this caveat for the ambitious and eager young would-be-student who stumbles upon this thread while trying to justify an easy enrollment to a sub-par (yet RA) MBA program. "I knew it!' say's he, "my for-profit waste of two years is actually equally rigorous as any other ivy league school!" Here I urge caution - get off your butt, go take the GMAT, work hard to get into a reputable school, ignore the academic rigor claims, and get a degree from somewhere reputable.

However, I digress depending on the overall career goals and educational motives of the individual student. For those who just want to study history because it's awesome, and want a piece of paper, perhaps the academic rigor argument is the only one that matters.

Best of luck to all.

 

CavTrooper pretty much nailed it.

 

You're assuming "if the accreditation is equal". But one problem with this assumption is that in some fields, for-profit schools are unlikely to pursue the highest levels of accreditation. So the accreditation isn't equal -- there are few or no for-profits at the highest levels.

For example, there are loads of for-profit schools that offer business and accounting programs. But how many of them are accredited by AACSB -- which is the oldest and most prestigious business accreditor in the US, and one of the three top business accreditors globally? I expect the number is very low (possibly zero).

Same would be true, for example, with ABET-accredited engineering programs, or ABA-accredited law programs. I'm not going to suggest that this pattern is necessarily true in every academic discipline, but it is certainly the case with some.

 

There are loads of non-profits schools and:

As of July 2012, 655 member institutions hold AACSB Accreditation. Overall, 44 countries and territories are represented by AACSB-accredited schools. Of the accredited schools:

42 institutions have undergraduate programs only (6% of accredited members)
30 institutions have master's and doctoral programs only (4% of accredited members)
178 institutions have AACSB’s additional accounting accreditation (28% of accredited members)
AACSB Business and Accounting Accreditation

 

But how many of those are for-profit?

The OP's question is:

Why would there be an issue with for-profit schools, if they have the same accreditation as non-profit schools ?

And one answer is:

Well, in some cases, such schools are rare or nonexistent. In some fields, there may be few or no for-profit schools with the same accreditation as the non-profits. AACSB is an example.

 

I have no idea how many are for-profits. I would guess very few to none. As you stated, the question is, "Why would there be an issue with for-profit schools, if they have the same accreditation as non-profit schools ?" The answer would not be, "Well, in some cases, they don't exist." because you are ignoring the actual question. Have fun...

 

As I also stated, this is "one answer", not "the answer". There may not be a single universally applicable answer. In fact, the OP doesn't expect a single universal answer; he asked for "valid issues" (in the plural).

I'm simply suggesting that one of those issues could be the general absence of for-profit schools when it comes to some of the more prestigious forms of accreditation. For example, the general lack of AACSB-accredited for-profit schools -- which you acknowledge -- could be one factor that affects the reputation of for-profit schools in the business school community. Does this seem unreasonable ?

 

Typically I don't track program costs but my general sense (I know there may be exceptions) is that the for-profits are just too expensive. Personally, I'd go to a place like UNISA and deal with all those associated difficulties before I paid the tuition at Phoenix, Walden, etc.

 

AACSB is typically sort after by schools that focus on research. For-profits are not research oriented schools. ACBSP is typically sort after by for-profit schools

 

Thanks to each of you who responded. I've read on several forums a few negative posts regarding for-profit schools, primarily in terms of negative statements without any substantive reason as to why. I was curious as to why the bias. Indeed, I understand that some of it has to do with the bias against distance learning (ie, online schools, hybrid programs, etc.) in general. I am aware that not all regionally accredited schools also have specific discipline accreditation (eg, AACSB, ABET, ATS, etc). Thus, my question in the OP, all things being equal (ie, if both schools for example had both regional and AACSB), why would there be any legitimate issues (other than mere personal bias) with the for-profit option?

That said, in response to Kizmet's post, I agree that for-profit tuition is excessive. I earned a regionally accredited BA at a B/M school, then completed a graduate degree and professional doctorate at B/M schools that had both regional accreditation and program specific accreditation (the AACSB equivalent for my field of study). These, of course, were US not-for-profit schools. After earning these degrees, because of the excessive tuition rate at both not-for-profit and for-profit US schools, I earned research degrees (masters and PhD) at a not-for-profit South African school that holds the same level of accreditation as UNISA, Univ of Pretoria, and the other major SA institutions. The sole factor in choosing the SA option was the cost of the programs.

Personally, if the tuition at for-profit schools here in the US was comparable, or if my company/business was paying the tuition, I would have no problem going that route. I was just curious as to what specific issues some have with the legitimately accredited for-profit schools.

 

My mention of excessive tuition was more in regard to doctoral programs, specifically the PhD. I haven't really priced undergrad programs. Of course, the PhD tuition at most of the not-for-profit US schools is also expensive.

 

However, if you pursue a foreign PhD, you are not eligible to use federally subsidized student loans, veterans benefits, etc.

In addition, for those pursuing a career in Higher Education, Federal Student Loans can be forgiven in 10 years, which plays into the individual finance decision.

Shawn

 

One still has to pay the student loan for ten years, right?

 

Correct, although the reduced payment options such as ICR or IBR count towards payment

 

My biggest complaints: low graduation rates (because of open admissions and no real motive to dissuade the unprepared entrants) and soaking up a lot of tax money that goes to corporate profits.

I'd complain about the lack of scholarly activities, but that can be said for some not-for-profit schools focused on working students.

 

Again there is something that is overlooked. For-profits get no funds from taxes as to State schools. While I have never seen the figures I would guess that if a State university would loose all of its tax funding it would cost as much if no more than many for-profits.

As to the open admissions I do not have a problem with that. People change and this gives them a chance to get an education. Now the for-profits that get huge amounts of federal and state aid but have excessive drop out rates this is a problem which needs addressed. They are not the only ones, many community colleges have high drop out rates, but their costs are subsidized so they do not receive as much aid. For-profits must do a better job at providing services so that the students they admit succeed and graduate, or they should lose the ability to receive some of the student aid funds.