Wage disadvantage in for-profit education

Study finds wage disadvantage for those starting at for-profits | Inside Higher Ed

 

It seems the study to be right about this issue. I sometimes realize that employers are not really favor who graduates from profit universities and colleges (i.e: University of Phoenix, Strayer University, DeVry University, Capella University, and much more...). I always try to avoid profit institutions.

 

I agree with TEKMAN, there is a sigma attached to these types of for-profit institutions. I can't speak to wage disadvantages, but it wouldn't surprise me if that was a reality.

 

Any findings on Bachelors, Masters or Doctoral degrees?

 

Sad but true, I was speaking with one of our recruiters yesterday, and the for-profit question came up. She basically stated that, any potential candidate with a degree from a for-profit, does not have a chance to even warrant an interview. With regards to the study, I would have liked to see the outcome for bachelors and masters degrees.

 

The study found that graduates of non-profit schools tend to have higher salaries than graduates of for-profit schools:

Let's put aside the last sentence for a moment, which I'm sure is controversial. Instead, look at the first two sentences. Everyone -- on both sides of the issue -- agrees that for-profit schools tend to admit the less prepared students. In other words, everyone -- on both sides of the issue -- agrees that for-profit schools tend to have the lowest admissions standards.

OK, now let's say you are an employer. If you have a choice, why would you favor the schools that are known to have the lowest admissions standards?

 

I understand your point but this is assuming all for-profits are the same. I woud think a for-profit with name recognition like UoP, DeVry, Strayer, etc. (the giants) might cause people to pause but I am not sure of the lesser known schools would lead someone to say, "Let me see if they are a for-profit or non-profit". Is it the status (for-profit/non-profit) or the reputation regardless of status? Kaiser (I think) is now a non-profit so are they all of a sudden better?

 

I understand your point, but the study is clearly talking about average tendencies. Nobody is saying that every graduate of every non-profit school is earning higher wages than every graduate of every for-profit school.

And if we use statistical averages, then let's face it: the "giants", like UoP, DeVry, or Strayer, are going to have a big, big influence on the overall average for the for-profit sector. Why? Because they're giant.

 

I understand it is not saying "every case is like xxx" but I just wonder how much of it is the reputation of the school. Broad terms like "for-profits" conjure up UoP, DeVry, etc. and not AMU or other smaller for-profits that serve a market. I never see things as black and white (profit vs. non-profit) but instead I see it as - how many graduates of that school have been successful regardless of status. You are right, the giants skew the numbers.