For-Profit Final Draft

Education in the United States has been becoming a larger priority for citizens to have as every new year passes. More employers are looking for people with degrees in the corresponding field of the work they will be doing. Although more employers are looking for a degree and more students are going to college every year, the limit for students that large Universities can take in, both public and private, is reaching its maximum intake of students. With this overflow of students that want a higher education, entrepreneurs like John Sperling and Michael Clifford are stepping in and innovating a branch of higher education known as For-Profit institutions designed for the students that were ignored from a standard university. For-Profit colleges have made a large change in the past decade as they have turned from being mainly “Mom and Pop Trade” Trade schools to being publicly traded giants. With this large growth in the past years it has allowed for many schools such as University of Phoenix and Grand Canyon University to build schools all over the nation for easy access by the United States. With this large uprise up schools they allow more students to attend every year. Although these schools sound like saviors for the rejected students, many have another view on what they really are. Many see the schools as a powerful empire that is out to steal these students money and leave the in the dirt in the end. Kevin Carey wrote an article called “Why Do You Think They’re Called For-Profit Colleges”, He goes and reaches out to some of the powerful leaders of this industry such as Michael Clifford, the owner of Grand Canyon University, to find out what these schools are all about. He discusses all of the horrific horror stories of many of the students that went to these schools who feel as though they were scammed and left with nothing but a massive pile of

debt, but in all he is out to defend the For-Profit school system and argues that they are a viable place for education. Carey and many others claim that For-Profit colleges are just looking to make money out of these students and they will take in anyone that is eligible for a loan no matter how underqualified they are or how likely they will be to default on their loan and even if they succeed in the school they are left with a practically worthless degree. In my paper I will discuss Carey’s paper and complicate it and extend the ideas that are made using outside sources from various professionals that view the For-Profit sector as adequate higher education or unsatisfactory.

In Carey’s Article he discusses how the For-Profit schools mainly target low-income families mainly because they are more likely to receive government loans which will help them pay for the hefty tuition that the schools charge, but although they are able to find government aid doesn’t mean that they will be able to pay the loan back in the end. This is why the For-Profit sector has led so many students to default on their loans, because they require low-income students to take on massive amounts of debt to get their degree that many students end up not being able to receive in the end as many students will likely drop out. It is shown that the graduation rate for the University of Phoenix online campus is less than 5% for students that have received a degree in 6 years and only .5% graduate in 4 years.(College Results) With the graduation rate so low for these students it  leaves them in the end with no degree to help them get the job they will need to pay off all of the debt that they have accumulated. As Carey states in his work “Large debt plus small income equals high risk of default”(Carrey 9). He says this because many of the students will end up defaulting on their loans because they didn’t have the funds necessary to pay for the loan they took out and now that they are left with their same previous income and no degree to help them find a better job, they have no other option but to default on their loans. Although Carey believes that it is the schools fault that they end up defaulting but the the Harvard scholars that wrote the article “For-Profit Colleges”(The Future of Children) think otherwise. In their article they state how the students at For-Profits are hurt financially but they don’t believe that it is the schools fault as they state “Students in for-profits tend to be in more precarious financial situations than other students before they enroll. Many of those from for-profits who defaulted on their loans or were unable to find work might have been in the same predicament even if they had attended a public or nonprofit institution”(Deming, Goldin, & Katz, 2013). This statement shows that in general even if this student had gone to a regular non-profit university they would have had the same likeliness to default on their loan. Some believe that the reason for the high default rates is that the For-Profit “recruiters” will sign up anyone they can, no matter how likely they are to default on their loans. But the employees of the for-profit schools such as Michael Clifford of the Grand Canyon University denies that the schools “have any responsibility whatsoever for how much students borrow and whether they can pay it back”(Carrey 8). The Harvard scholars help qualify Carey’s text as they support the side that it is not the For-Profit schools fault that the students default but they believe that the students who default were destined to fail from the start. The students later go on to compare the Community College system to the For-Profits as they are both feasible options for students that were rejected from the public Universities. They claim that the For-Profits have a much better guidance system that allows the students to complete the classes they need and graduate in a short period of time. They discovered a study conducted by James Rosenbaum, Regina Deil-Amen and Ann Person where they researched and compared the completion rates between community colleges and For-Profits alone and they came to the conclusion that “”Private Occupational Colleges”(Meaning for-profit, proprietary or career colleges) had higher completion

ratings than students at community colleges”(Deming, Goldin, & Katz, 2013). These students are helping support and qualify Carey’s claims as they are stating that although the For-Profits are more expensive than the community colleges, the for-profits have higher completion ratings and they offer much better programs with more guidance that the community colleges are unable to offer.

Carey makes many claims speaking against what the For-Profit schools are doing. One of the claims he makes is how the For-Profit schools are fighting against many of the government laws being created to limit the money the schools can receive from government subsidies. He states that “the “90/10 rule,” a federal rule that bars for-profits from receiving more than 90 percent of their revenue from federal aid”(Carey, 2010). He goes on to state that the schools are making attempts to re brand as “Market based” instead of for-profit to make it seem as though they are less in it for the money and more in it to give the students a better education. Although Carey is on the side to enforce these sorts of laws, there are many people out there that believe that these schools are being singled out and that these laws shouldn't only be enforced on for-profits but on the higher education sector as a whole. People such as Brian Darling, an aide to senators on the US counsel, believes that “the non-profit sector feels threatened”(Darling 2010), and that they have aided with the government to limit the power that the for-profits can hold. Darling supports the Education for All Act which forbids the singling out of students from proprietary and vocational schools. He complicates Carey’s claim by supporting the enforcement of laws, such as one requiring the department of education to evaluate students of post-secondary schools and deny them if they are deemed unfit, would make it very difficult for these schools to operate. As Darling states that it would be more difficult for the institutions to operate if the students were evaluated, there is much more room to argue that these rules should be enforced because the students that they are taking in are not fit to take on this higher education and being able to pay it off in the end. Others that help strengthen Carey's case such as a professor of law at the University of Miami argue that “By civic and economic standards, for-profit higher education outcomes are disappointing”(James, 2011). James believes that many students are misguided and they should be provided with the facts on graduation rates and salaries after graduation so that students can see the dangers and make the decision for themselves whether they want to take the risk of entering into the school or not. Both authors complicate the Claim Carey makes and states that the government shouldn’t take only the for-profits into discussion when creating these laws and that instead of singling the schools out in these laws that would limit the amount of money the schools can make, the schools should be able to provide the student with enough information on what the school can offer them and how likely they are to succeed. Darling later states that the government making these laws “unfairly hold for-profit institutions to a higher standard for student debt and default than all other institutions of higher education”(Darling, 2010)  But much of the reason these laws are being created are not because of the large risk of default but because the hgih percentage of federal aid coming to for-profits. Carey states that “A quarter of federal aid goes to for-profits, while they enroll only 10 percent of students”(Carey, 2010). Although these claims made by these professionals do complicate the claims made by Carey, the claims Carey makes prove to show compelling evidence that the government should be able to put a higher regulation on the federal aid the for profits can receive as they are such a small percentage of higher education but they still gain such a large proportion from the government

After doing in-depth research on the topic of higher education in the form of For-Profit schools, it is shown by the evidence provided by Carey and various outside sources that this sector of higher education proves to be a vital source of education for low income students rejected by the formal university. The claims made by Carey showed that he believed that the For-Profits were a suitable place for education but had stated that it should also be regulated slightly by the government. Some outside sources had qualified Carey while others had complicated his claims, but in the end the claims originally made by Carey had been proven much more applicable. Although For-Profits do have a much higher price tag than those on community colleges, the For-Profits provide much better programs that allow students to get their degrees completed in a short amount of time and keep them on track throughout the way.

For-Profit Draft

Education in the United States has been becoming a larger priority for citizens to have as every new year passes. More jobs are looking for people with degrees in the corresponding field of the work they will be doing. Although more jobs are looking for a degree and more students are going to college every year, the limit for students that large Universities can take in, both public and private, is reaching its maximum intake of students. With this overflow of students that want a higher education, entrepreneurs like John Sperling and Michael Clifford are stepping in and innovating a branch of higher education known as For-Profit institutions designed for the students that were ignored from a standard university. For-Profit colleges have made a large change in the past decade as they have turned from being mainly “Mom and Pop Trade” Trade schools to being publicly traded giants. With this large growth in the past years it has allowed for many schools such as University of Phoenix and Grand Canyon University to build schools all over the nation for easy access by the United States. With this large uprise up schools they allow more students to attend every year. Although these schools sound like saviours for the rejected students, many have another view on what they really are. Many see the schools as a powerful mongol that is out to steal these students money and leave the in the dirt in the end. Kevin Carey wrote an article called “Why Do You Think They’re Called For-Profit Colleges”, He goes and reaches out to some of the powerful leaders of this industry such as Michael Clifford, the owner of Grand Canyon University, to find out what these schools are all about. He discusses all of the horrific horror stories of many of the students that went to these schools who feel as though they were scammed and left with nothing but a massive pile of debt. Carey and many others claim that For-Profit colleges are just looking to make money out of these students and they will take in anyone that is eligible for a loan no matter how underqualified they are or how likely they will be to default on their loan and even if they succeed in the school they are left with a practically worthless degree. In my paper I will discuss Carey’s paper and link it to other outside works in establishing the validity of the facts that Carey is presenting to his audience.
In Carey’s Article he discusses how the For-Profit schools mainly target low-income families mainly because they are more likely to receive government loans which will help them pay for the hefty tuition that the schools charge, but although they are able to find government aid doesn’t mean that they will be able to pay the loan back in the end. This is why the For-Profit sector has led so many students to default on their loans, because they require low-income students to take on massive amounts of debt to get their degree that many students end up not being able to receive in the end as many students will likely drop out. It is shown that the graduation rate for the University of Phoenix online campus is less than 5% for students that have received a degree in 6 years and only .5% graduate in 4 years. With the graduation rate so low for these students it  leaves them in the end with no degree to help them get the job they will need to pay off all of the debt that they have accumulated. As Carey states in his work “Large debt plus small income equals high risk of default”(Carrey 9), he says this because many of the students will end up defaulting on their loans because they didn’t have the funds necessary to pay for the loan they took out and now that they are left with their same previous income and no degree to help them find a better job, they have no other option but to default on their loans. Although Carey believes that it is the schools fault that they end up defaulting but the the Harvard scholars that wrote the article “For-Profit Colleges” on the Future of Children think otherwise. In their article they state how the students at For-Profits are hurt financially but they don’t believe that it is the schools fault as they state “Students in for-profits tend to be in more precarious financial situations than other students before they enroll. Many of those from for-profits who defaulted on their loans or were unable to find work might have been in the same predicament even if they had attended a public or nonprofit institution”(Deming 6). This statement shows that in general even if this student had gone to a regular non-profit university they would have had the same likeliness to default on their loan. Although this statement is true it is shown that the For-Profit schools will take anyone even if the have a high risk of default while non-profits will deny these students loans if they are unfit to pay them back. But the employees of the for-profit schools such as Michael Clifford of the Grand Canyon University  denies that the schools “have any responsibility whatsoever for how much students borrow and whether they can pay it back”(Carrey 8). This shows that the argument could go either way of people saying that it is either the schools fault or that the student was destined still default even after a non-profit university. Another claim that Carey makes in his paper that can also be retaliated against is the claim about how the For-Profit schools are making attempts to sneak by the laws the government is making to prevent them from receiving the majority of their money from government subsidies.
Carey makes many claims speaking against what the For-Profit schools are doing, one of the claims he makes is how the For-Profit schools are fighting against many of the government laws being created to limit the money the schools can receive from government subsidies. He states that “the “90/10 rule,” a federal rule that bars for-profits from receiving more than 90 percent of their revenue from federal aid”(Carey 10). He goes on to state that the schools are making attempts to rebrand as “Market based” instead of for-profit to make it seem as though they are less in it for the money and more in it to give the students a better education. Although Carey is on the side to enforce these sorts of laws, there are many people out there that believe that these schools are being singled out and that these laws shouldn’t only be enforced on for-profits but on the higher education sector as a whole. People such as Brian Darling, an aide to senators on the US counsel, believes that “the non-profit sector feels threatened”(Darling 1), and that the have aided with the government to limit the power that the for-profits can hold. Darling supports the Education for All Act which forbids the singling out of students from proprietary and vocational schools. Darling believes that the enforcement of laws, such as one requiring the department of education to evaluate students of postsecondary schools and deny them if they are deemed unfit, would make it very difficult for these schools to operate. As Darling states that it would be more difficult for the institutions to operate if the students were evaluated, there is much more room to argue that these rules should be enforced because the students that they are taking in are not fit to take on this higher education and being able to pay it off in the end. Others that help strengthen Carey's case such as a professor of law at the University of Miami argue that “By civic and economic standards, for-profit higher education outcomes are disappointing”(James 3). James believes that many students are misguided and they should be provided with the facts on graduation rates and salaries after graduation so that students can see the dangers and make the decision for themselves whether they want to take the risk of entering into the school or not.
After doing in depth research on this topic of for-profit schools, I am now lead to believe that the schools are very corrupted and regulations need to be set to limit what they can and can’t do. Although I believe this, I also see some sort of light at the end of the tunnel for these schools as they do show some positives and they could possibly evolve and change in a way so they can still operate efficiently and make a profit, but also do good for the community by continuing to save dying schools and educate those that want to be highly educated but can’t do the denial from the non-profit school system. So for-profits should not be completely disregarded, but with the right pushing of some laws and restrictions, the for-profit sector can be a great asset in providing the general public with a way to get more people to recieve a higher education.

Quotes Relating to Carey

1. "For-Profit universities view their students as customers, and to attract and retain those customers degree programs and curricula must be market driven."-Seiden
2. "The money received in military education benefits by just 20 for-profit companies soared to an estimated $521.2 million from $66.6 million" - Perteaus 
3. "Students learn just enough by surfing the web for random unreliable sources" - Comment Section

Carey's Main Claims

1. Carey’s first claim in the article is that For-Profit colleges charge much more for tuition than Community Colleges and Universities. He backs up this claim with statistics stating the amount charged for a four year University and then how much for a For-Profit Institution. Carey’s second claim is that For-Profit colleges are receiving ridiculous amounts of money from the government. He provides evidence that the students are receiving Pell Grants and Subsidized Loans to pay. The third Claim is that the schools are growing at a very rapid rate to the point where they are highly unlikely to be stopped. He supports this by stating how they used to by “mom and Pop trade schools but now they are turning into mass corporations.
2. The first claim that Carey makes about the positives of For-Profit schools is that they fix the gap left by universities and they accept the students that weren't able to get into those schools. He supports this by stating that the schools offer night classes so people can work during the day and that they also don't look at past grades for acceptance. The second claim he makes is that these big corporate schools are able to save the sick and dying schools by buying them out and turning them into a For-Profit. He provides evidence that Grand Canyon University has bought out many smaller schools to build on and to save the students that attend these schools. The third claims is that they make the attempt to appeal to the general public. He backs this by stating that They offer a wide variety of class forms that can help almost anyone get a degree such as online.
3. I would like to investigate the 90/10 law and see how the Universities are fighting it and how it works.

For-Profit Colleges Response

In the article “Why Do You Think They’re Called For-Profit Colleges” by Kevin Carey he discusses the effects of for-profit colleges on students and on the government. He chooses to organize the text in which he discusses the cons of the for-profit institutions and then goes on to discuss what positive outcomes it has on the community. He chose to organize this way to stop anyone from disproving his statement by already stating the positive effects. Carey goes on to discuss in his article describing many events where the government is trying to put the money vacuum we call for-profit colleges to a halt by stating the actions the government has made. He uses this strategy to display that although the government is making a fight against the horrifying stories about these colleges, the colleges are fighting back and it seems as though they have much more power. In the end of the article where Carey discusses the benefits of these for-profit schools seems very persuasive as it seems that they are trying to make good in the community. Such as where he talks about how they want to provide education for walmart cashiers and they are saving some drowning institutions. But it seems as though he was able to support all of his claims with some sort of solid evidence.

For-Profit Impressions

Whenever I heard about schools such as ITT Tech and University of Phoenix I always thought that it was just a school for older people who wanted to get a degree and it was easy and cheap. After watching the videos about what these for-profit Universities were all about, I was shocked. I was disgusted about the things that these schools would do to these lower income people just because they want to get an education to get a better job and make more money. I never knew how expensive the schools were and that many of the students wouldn’t even graduate. I would really want to learn more about the horrors of this scam of a school.

Public Thinking Final Paper

What comes to mind when you think of social media? Many believe that it is corrupting young people, deteriorating their brains, and making them less productive. Well Clive Thompson believes the complete opposite as he states in the chapter “Public Thinking” in Smarted Than You Think.  

Since the age of social media began with tools such as AOL Messenger and the launch of websites such as MySpace, it has been one of the most controversial subjects in the United States regarding teenagers and young adults.  It is seen by many to be a place to simply waste time watching silly cat videos and show everyone your morning coffee from Starbucks.   Thompson disagrees completely with that notion.  Instead, he believes that in reality, all of these social media sites are a place to express one’s thoughts and views through writing in a public venue.  For quite a while, Thompson has been arguing that social media is beneficial for teens, yet it wasn’t until he released his book that he gained widespread awareness from the nation. In his book, he argues that social media has encouraged our generation to improve their writing skills and write more often to effectively share their ideas.  The many claims he professes in his work are supported by solid evidence as a result of his main strategy, extensive professional research.  I will explore the main claims made in his book and evaluate the way Thompson structures his novel, states his claims and supports them with solid evidence to enlighten his readers on the benefits that social media has on transforming the coming generations to become bigger and better writers.

Thompson discusses the effects that having an audience can have on a person that is performing anything from a concert to a sports game to even choosing out a simple pattern. This effect is called the “Audience Effect”. He discussed the “Audience Effect” in a study that was performed by a group of professors at Vanderbilt University where they proved that having an audience can persuade the writer or performer to feel more compelled to produce better work than they would have if they had no audience. In the study at Vanderbilt, three groups of students were given the task to solve a pattern of different bugs, but each group had been given a different audience. The first group had been given no audience at all other than the observers and had to work in solitude.   The second group had been asked to speak into a tape recorder and explain their actions.  And the third group had been asked to explain to their mothers, at their side, what they were doing step by step. It was shown that;

The Children who solved the puzzle silently had the worst results. The individuals who talked into a tape recorder did better, concluding the simple act of articulating their thinking process aloud helped them think more critically and identify the patterns more clearly.  Overwhelmingly, the individuals talking to a meaningful audience (their mothers) had the best results.(55)

In this example, Thompson suggests that even having the most miniscule audience such as a video camera can make you think more before you do something because you want to impress your audience. The Audience Effect doesn’t only occur based on the fact that the writer or performer only wants to impress their audience, but it occurs because the writer/performer wants to provide the audience with a piece of work that actually means something and of which they are proud.  

Pride in writing for an audience was clearly illustrated by Thompson with the story of a Kenyan girl.  Ory, a Kenyan blogger, had started to blog as a hobby until she had gained a substantial number of subscribers.   At that point, it became much more than just a way to pass time. She began taking more time working on her pieces because, “Knowing I had these people reading me, I was very self conscious to build my arguments, back up what I want to say. It was very interesting; I got this sense of obligation.” (46)   Thompson had determined this to be caused by the “Audience Effect”, which had a large impact on what Ory was producing and releasing to the public. She wasn’t just releasing any old piece of work but she felt as though they were demanding better of her and in turn she was demanding more from herself.  Overall, Thompson had made an effort to prove that this idea that was originally discovered by scientists, exists everywhere in writing. With the influx of new writing due to the new digital age, many believe that It will have benefits for the community as a whole and for a writer individually.

With the rapid growth of technology in this new generation has elevated the art of writing to a whole new level. Thompson makes a significant claim that with the flood of new writing on the Internet will be very beneficial in clarifying our thinking, improving our memory, and performing better scholastically.  Thompson states that writing is a way for a person to clarify their mind and get whatever is in their head down on a piece of paper. For example, “By putting half formed thoughts on the page, we can externalize them and are able to evaluate them much more objectively.”(51)  By saying this, Thompson explains that when you have a pen and piece of paper or alternatively a keyboard and a screen, you can release all those built up ideas laying around in your head that you could never keep straight and organize them in an effective manner.

Writing not only enables you to clear your mind, but it can also improve your mind by helping you remember things.  This is called the “Generation Effect.” Thompson explains that “Writing improves your memory, write about something and you will remember it better.”(57) This idea of the “Generation Effect” was first tested in 1978 by two psychologists. In their study they had determined that  fix quotations “Writing won out. The people who wrote words remembered them better than those who’d only read them- probably because generating text yourself “requires more cognitive effort than reading”(57). Thompson uses this study to prove that writing can also benefit us by helping us remember more clearly what we had put down on that peice of paper. He later states that “College Students have harnessed this effect for decades as a study technique”(57), in an effort to display that people use the “Generation Effect” in school as it benefits them. The digital age has not only benefited us as individuals but it has also created benefits for the larger community as Thompson claims that it can help us advance democracy and civil society.  Ory’s blog provides a great example of the idea that writing on the Internet to advance politics is possible. Ory had written about her home country of Kenya, which she had left when she was a child.  After a short time, Ory had developed a following when she discussed the politics of Kenya and how they needed a reform.  “Her blog quickly became a clearinghouse for information on the crisis”(46).  She had written about the rigged election and she wanted to see change and she did through her growing number of followers.  She was even offered a deal to write and publish a book and also create a documentary. This proves that through writing on the Internet, Ory was able to make a difference in a home far from home.  

But this Golden Age has also had large effects on students as they have become better writers just with the development of new technologies.  With the new Golden Age of literacy upon us, we have seen an enormous flow of bigger and better writing from students of all ages. Thompson believes that with new technology the students of today have improved their writing to become better than those students of the past. Thompson had backed this claim with a study from Andrea Lunsford,  a Stanford professor, showing how “today’s freshman-comp essays are over six times as longer than they were back then, and also generally more complex.”(66)  Thompson uses the findings of Professor Lunsford to determine that students are becoming better writers due to the creation of the Internet and social media. Many students write much more for pleasure in today’s world because the ease of access to a larger audience than they had ever had before. It was found that “roughly 40 percent of everything that these students wrote was for pleasure, leisure or socializing”(67). Many would make an attempt to falsify his claim by stating that with the use of Instant Messaging that students would be more likely to use shortened versions of words and incorrect grammar, but Thompson disproves this by stating that out of 1.5 million words collected from works of teenagers, “only 3 percent contained IM-style short forms”(66). This is a great use of counterargument on Thompsons part as this would be one of the main rebuttals used by his critics.

Thompson organizes his claims and evidence in such a way that he would make a claim and then he would provide a strong counter argument backed by concrete evidence to show that the ideas that many have that could disprove his claims are actually false. One piece of this evidence that does provide comfort for sceptics is that all of Thompson's evidence used for the claim that students are becoming better writers, was provided by a Stanford professor from her Stanford students. As Stanford is home to the greatest minds in our country, this evidence does not provide a good sample of our community as a whole and can be falsified in that aspect.  Overall, Thompson was able to provide many diverse claims that he had backed with all sorts of evidence in an effort to prove to his readers that this evolution of technology is actually a good catalyst for our generation of writers.