Lack of diversity among for-profit colleges

If for-profit colleges are not structurally different from private, non-profit colleges, then shouldn't they have the same diversity as private, non-profit colleges?

Are there any for-profit colleges that are R1, R2, or R3?

Are there any for-profit colleges that guarantee free tuition for anyone from a household that earns under a certain income?

Why do f0r-profits seem to totally avoid certain majors, even if they're popular or lucrative? For example, all the online doctoral programs in engineering that I've found are either at public or non-profit universities. I don't think I've ever seen an online graduate program in chemistry, physics, or biology at a for-profit college, unless it was a program for K-12 teachers.

 

Grand Canyon has online MSes in chemistry and in biology with emphases in education that seem to skew towards postsecondary. (Grand Canyon as we know is a non-profit corporation with a complicated services agreement with a related for-profit.) ACE’s MEds in chemistry education and in biology education seem to be K-16 that you could use to study teaching postsecondary.

Ponce Health Sciences University — a rare US RA for-profit AAMC MD school — has an online “special master’s” MS in medical sciences for premedical record-improvers. Medical University of the Americas in St. Kitts and Nevis has an online MSc in biological science which integrates coursework they and their affiliates may accept as postbac premedical prerequisites.

Post University, Salem University, Five Towns College, and the employee-owned Pacifica Graduate Institute also come to mind as Legally For-Profits That Look Like Non-Profits. But it is rare.

 

I should have specified American institutions, but I expect for-profit medical, dental, and veterinary schools to offer prerequisite and first year basic science programs for their doctoral programs. That's different from offering a master's in biology for people who want to become biologists. The chemistry education and biology education programs intended for K-12 and dual credit are insufficient for this. They're even insufficient for teaching upper level biology and chemistry courses.

 

These are not graduate-level chemistry programs. They're not equivalent to a bachelor's in chemistry either. Also, notice how they teach "concepts," which means that these courses are less technical and designed for people who don't have an undergraduate degree in the subject. GCU's page says that their program teaches you "how to teach" undergraduate chemistry courses, so it's a pedagogy/andragogy program.

https://catalog.ace.edu/preview_program.php?catoid=83&poid=9789&returnto=9365

https://www.gcu.edu/degree-programs/master-science-chemistry-education#Coursework


Here's are online masters in chemistry for comparison.

https://catalog.usj.edu/preview_program.php?catoid=19&poid=3603&returnto=1034

https://catalogue.uncw.edu/preview_program.php?catoid=79&poid=16100&returnto=11299

 

The American Public University System has the most diverse graduate offerings I've seen at a for-profit. Post University's offerings are very generic and typical for a for-profit. I'll go through the rest of the schools later.

 

GCU, Post, Salem, and Five Towns are in the fairly small group of for-profits with traditional campuses with housing.

 

I don't know about the history of the others, but GCU was a traditional university before it was purchased by a for-profit company. Now, they're technically non-profit again. I don't think that on-campus housing for older for-profits is indicative of anything. I'm mostly concerned with academic activity and what money is spent on.

This doesn't answer why for-profits totally avoid certain majors that are common at other universities or why for-profits don't become research institutions. If I remember correctly, Devry used to have a campus with dorms, but it's still a technical university that doesn't offer degrees in chemical engineering, aerospace engineering, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, etc. If you see any graduate-level, engineering-related program at a for-profit, it's typically something like engineering technology or software engineering.

I just remembered when HLC (formerly North Central Association) came under scrutiny for allowing for-profits to purchase small, struggling colleges and drastically changing their mission and programs. This was termed "buying accreditation."

 

My understanding is that for-profits are ineligible for many grants because they are for-profit. As we are seeing with the current funding issues, it is quite difficult to sustain a research institution without research funding.

As for the others? I couldn't say. Though attracting and retaining qualified faculty is difficult even at small non profit or public schools. Some years ago the community college where I was teaching had to send students to a nearby university for, it was either Biology ot Chemistry, because they just didn't have qualified instructors.

But also, I'd say beyond profit status, the idea of specialized schools and a de-emphasis on liberal arts education is not a terrible idea. In such a world we would expect to ser private for profit schools focusing on things like business education versus fields where research and instruction alignment is a bit more crucial.

 

For-profit colleges offer what will be in demand by their target audience, which is mainly people who can't get into competitive institutions or who need remediation. The job prospects for various engineering fields are better than the counseling, psychology, criminal justice, human services, general business, and non-licensure education programs for-profits commonly offer.

For-profits avoid programs that will require a high level of math or advanced reading and writing skills. The students who are capable of passing differential equations and linear algebra are typically not interested in for-profits. For-profit institutions could make themselves more selective and offer a wider variety of majors to attract better students, but it's cheaper and easier to target lower-performing students.

 

Back in the day when California was filled with unaccredited distance schools--and nothing screamed "for profit" more than those guys--every school offered degrees in these areas (and almost never in anything else, unless the school had a specific mission):

• Engineering
• Business
• Education
• Psychology

That was the lineup at dozens of schools. The only thing I think has changed since those days is the rise of the computing world. Otherwise, those were the big 4.

 

I remember many years ago, reading the (rather impressive-looking) catalog of Kennedy-Western University, and their graduate programs were exactly what you listed, plus Criminal Justice and a few others. They emphasized about how you only needed a CA-approved degree to become a CA psychologist, teachers would get education incentive pay for CA-approved credentials. and many businesses would pay for CA-approved programs.

So, they were just going where the money was, which makes sense.