"Education is one of the few things a person is willing to pay for and not get" - William Lowe Bryan
Privatization of public goods has become a norm as we see an increasingly large movement against public institutions. A widespread belief among the American public is that the government is inefficient, and all economic woes can be solved by the privatization of public necessities such as health care, education, and media organizations. This approach can be beneficial if done right, but by privatizing one of the most important facets of our society, education, we have seen a for profit model that has morphed this once public institution into more of a corporation than a public good. While there are increasing tuition rates, an increase in people attending college, and the overall costs associated with these changing factors, the need for a change in the system to accommodate such changes is necessary. For profit colleges have been viewed as the antidote, with now nearly 7 percent of this country's 19 million students being enrolled in these for profit colleges (College Inc.). Many questions arise as to the consequences of creating a system where someone or some entity actually profits from providing somebody else's education. Is this a way of curing the ailments of a bloated college system, or is it just a detriment to the creation of a more moral and altruistic society? Should education morally be for profit? Is this system of for profit education actually bettering the economy as a whole, and whom does it benefit more? The C.E.O. or the student? Who gets to really decide in what ways the education is administered? An impartial body or the stockholders? Many of these questions have been raised and as our values are put to the test, we as a society must decide what programs or institutions should be based on a profit motive. As the stories of huge student loan debts, lack of accreditation for these schools, and predatory recruitment practices come to light, it is hard to defend such institutions that are sworn to educate our youth and lead them on a path of success. It seems that the only ones who benefit from such a system are those who have created the system and have sold it to us, the American public, as a viable alternative to the traditional university system.
When we talk about the differences between a traditional university system and for profit, we must look at the ways in which both operate. Many will argue traditional universities aren't entirely non-profit, as the presidents of the public universities are paid large salaries, usually in the six figure range (New York Times par. 1). The difference between a president of a public institution, and a private institution, is who they are beholden to, and what interests they want to serve. A public university president is held accountable by the state, the students, and the academic world, and are expected to uphold a level of morality and ethics when administering new policies or curriculums for his students. A private university president is held accountable by the stockholders, the board of directors, and the private donations received by investment firms. This is what makes the priorities of the private, for profit university president much different than that of the public university president. The public university president must serve the needs of his student, while the private university president must serve the needs of Wall Street.
We can already see how privatizing education and making it for profit perverts the motives of those in charge. When a person or an entity is to earn a profit off of somebody else's education, a conflict of interest arises. Mark Defusco, a former president of the University of Phoenix, the largest of the for profit institutions, begs to disagree. Defusco defends his stance on the need for this type of system in today's economic environment and how business and education do not create a conflict of interest, but rather the system fills the void left by traditional universities. Defusco says "I would suggest that in the practical world that we have to pay for things and that when we get scarce resources, as we have these days, that we have to make some decisions about where we use those resources. So I would say perhaps not a business, but certainly as a steward of resources, we ought to know what we do, and we ought to use our resources where we need them most" (Defusco par. 36). While this may be Defusco's defense and it sounds pretty good on paper, when you look at the facts and statistics, it is hard to tell whether the priority of these schools is in providing a quality education, or simply generating a high enrollment rate for the profit. The University of Phoenix spent over $130 million alone in advertisements in 2009, rivaling multinational corporations like Tide or FedEx (Wilson par 22).
These for profit universities on average spend more on advertisement and recruitment techniques than the actual education itself (College Inc.). Much of the recruitment efforts these schools use border on being illegal, providing false information and unaccredited diplomas to students. High pressure tactics like incessant phone calls, creating a false sense of urgency for the students to apply, and promising degrees and diplomas the school does not actually offer have been alleged by various sources, from graduated students to former enrollment advisors. Some of these enrollment advisors are required to meet quotas of at least 150 calls a day to prospective students, and expected to close on at least 12 students a month (College Inc). This is troubling as it shows the significance the school places more on hooking the students in rather than providing them a quality education. It is said about 20-25% of what for profit universities spend their money on is advertising, meanwhile only 10-15% of their budget is allocated to the salaries of teachers, curriculum design, and the actual education of the students. Since the University of Phoenix and other for profit universities are actually sanctioned as private businesses, it is hard to get an exact figure on how much they actually spend on teacher's salaries and the education itself due to their right to privacy. This kind of secrecy also raises concern, because it shows their lack of public accountability to the public.
Even with all these concerns being raised by the media and the public, the for profit sector of higher education is booming. In the past 30 years, enrollment rates for these schools have on average increased about 7% each year, while traditional public schools have averaged only about a 1-2% increase in enrollment (College Inc). For profit universities brought in a staggering $26 billion dollars into the economy last year (Wilson par. 16), meanwhile about 50-60% of the students who graduate from these universities end up defaulting on their student loans, which often go into the triple digit ranges, with $100,000-$200,000 worth of student loan debt (College Inc). This is the paradox of this capitalist version of education. It is benefitting those at the top while the ones who actually provide the monetary gains for these corporations are actually being scammed. This is a tool of oppression, as these students are often hustled into getting loans, either through the school or some form of financial aid, only to find out their diploma is worth less than the paper it is printed on. They end up becoming beholden to the loan industry and the school, while the C.E.Os at the top are profiting from the system. Often the recruiters at these schools are enrolling students who are not ready for college or do not meet college criteria, just to boost their own profits.
This hierarchical system imposed on higher education is exactly what Paulo Friere talks about in his essay "Pedagogy of the Oppressed". He talks about how students in general are being oppressed by the education system in ways unseen by most people. He talks about the conditioning done on a mass scale, to train a work force of people who are indebted to the corporations and entities that aim to oppress the public for their own self interests (Freire). The same can be said about the for profit system of education, as we see those who run this system convolute the message to seem as if they are acting in the interest of the students, the same ones who end up getting the short end of the stick in this system of education in exchange for dollars and dimes. Paulo Freire says
"Indeed, the interests of the oppressors lie in 'changing the consciousness of the
oppressed, not the situation which oppresses them,' (1) for the more the oppressed can
be led to adapt to that situation, the more easily they can be dominated. To achieve this
the oppressors use the banking concept of education in conjunction with a paternalistic
social action apparatus, within which the oppressed receive the euphemistic title of
'welfare recipients'. They are treated as individual cases, as marginal persons who
deviate from the general configuration of a 'good, organized and just' society. The
oppressed are regarded as the pathology of the healthy society which must therefore
adjust these 'incompetent and lazy' folk to its own patterns by changing their mentality.
These marginals need to be 'integrated', 'incorporated' into the healthy society that they
have 'forsaken'." (Freire par. 11).
Freire is saying that the goals of these for profit institutions are manipulated by those who state them to seem almost paternalistic and self sacrificing for the interests of the student. It's sort of ironic for these businessmen and entrepreneurs to sit back and say they are doing this for the good of everybody else, when it is very clear the only thing this system is good for is for the pockets of those claiming benevolence.
On top of it, those that do graduate with accredited degrees from these universities often lack the hands on experience or connections needed to obtain a job. In the documentary College Inc, Frontline tells the story of three women who attended Everest College. They claimed that Everest College promised to give them a licensed degree in nursing and right after college they would be immediately eligible for practically any job in the field of nursing (College Inc.). A 12 month program and $28,000 later, the three women could not obtain any legitimate job due to their lack of experience in the field, whether it was interning at hospitals or any sort of firsthand experience (College Inc.). The women claimed that the only hands on experience working in the field of nursing while attending Everest College was their psychiatric rotation held at a museum of scientology, and their pediatric rotation at a local day care (College Inc.). This shows the school's lack of emphasis on educating the students and the actual priorities of these for profit institutions. It's not the quality of the education, it's the quantity. The more students who enroll, the money in the pockets of the C.E.Os, the more shareholders invest, the better the company does. These three women and many others who attended this college remain unemployed, as prospective employers claim the student didn't receive the proper training required to obtain a position in their staff. These three women and 10 others in their class are in the process of filing a lawsuit against Everest College for fraudulent claims posed by the university that they would provide the students with the training necessary to start a career in nursing (College Inc.).
These examples and more show the problems that such a system of privatized for profit education perpetuates. When money is thrown into an institution that is traditionally nonprofit, it perverts the ways in which the system was originally designed. It seems that certain sectors of society just aren't meant to be made profitable. Education is a primary service that is necessary to further the progress of our country. With massive student loan debts, predatory recruitment practices, and unaccredited universities claiming fraudulent credentials, we see a system that breeds corruption and injustice, ultimately undermining our higher education system. As long as we live in a society that values free market and capitalist values, we'll see almost any institution be made into a business. Whether or not these institutions will thrive is a question of whether or not those who run the system operate it ethically. It seems clear that the way for profit education is currently being ran is certainly not ethical, and definitely crosses the legal boundaries necessary to be deemed a valid alternative to traditional methods of education. Until this system is either adjusted or abolished, we'll see more and more students fall prey to the vultures of capitalist businessmen, looking to further their own interests while simultaneously selling to us that it is in our interest as well.
Signing out- John Thomas
Works Cited
College Inc., Frontline. PBS, 4 May 2010. Web. 20 Apr. 2011
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/collegeinc/view/
Defusco, Mark. Interview with Frontline. PBS, 16 February 2010. Web. 25 Apr. 2011
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/collegeinc/interviews/defusco.html#ixzz1L7pIPu2X
Lewin, Tamar. "Presidents’ Pay Rises Faster at Public Universities Than Private Ones, Survey Finds", New York Times. New York Times, 17 Nov. 2008. Web. 25 Apr. 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/17/education/17college.html
Paulo, Freire. Pedadogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum Books, 1993.
http://www.webster.edu/~corbetre/philosophy/education/freire/freire-2.html
Wilson, Robin. "For-Profit Colleges Change Higher Education's Landscape", The Chronicle on Higher Education (2010) Web. 25 April. 2011
http://chronicle.com/article/For-Profit-Colleges-Change-/64012/
No comments:
Post a Comment