For Profit,For Success,For Black Men: A Review of Literature on Urban For-Profit Colleges and Universities

Abstract

In the last 20 years, the U.S. higher education system has witnessed the tremendous growth of for-profit colleges and universities (FPCUs). In fact, FPCUs have quickly become the fastest growing segment of postsecondary education. With innovative practices and alternative delivery of educational services, FPCUs have established a considerable pipeline for minority students, especially Blacks. This article presents research and literature on the phenomenon of the rising FPCU and what it represents for racial minorities, especially Black males. Recommendations for practice and policy for Black male student success are offered.

Keywords

postsecondary education Black males urban academic achievement urban education African American students

For the last two decades, the U.S. higher education system has witnessed tremendous growth in for-profit postsecondary educational opportunities. In fact, for-profit colleges and universities (FPCUs) have rapidly become the fastest growing sector of postsecondary education (Floyd, 2005; Silber, 2006; Snyder & Hoffman, 2003). These privately funded institutions generate substantial profit by providing postsecondary degrees or credentials to targeted segments of the workforce and particular industries (Deming, Claudia, & Katz, 2012; Dill, 2005; Ruch, 2001). FPCUs often respond to the market and labor demands of employers, trades, and professions to create and offer programs that prepare students for positions where there is enough demand, and for which the cost of schooling is likely to be recouped with the increase in income students will earn (Hentschke, Lechuga, & Tierney, 2010).

With innovative practices and alternative delivery of educational services, FPCUs have established a substantial pipeline for minority students, especially Blacks (Berg, 2005; Donini-Lenhoff & Brotherton, 2010; Farrell, 2003). According to Wright (2013), a new trend is developing in Black America. Long gone are the days where Blacks could obtain well-paying jobs and careers without a higher education degree. Today, those who lack credentials are relegated into the low-wage service sector, and thus, many Blacks are returning to school, especially FPCUs, in droves. Ruch (2001) posited that the typical profile of a student pursuing a degree at a FPCU ascribes to the following demographic: 27-year-old female, ethnic minority (African American, Hispanic, or Asian), U.S. citizen, married with one or two dependents, maintaining a full- or part-time job while enrolled in school, and having some prior college experience. Supporters have argued that FPCUs allow minority students to earn degrees and advance in their careers more quickly than traditional colleges, which often require more courses and less flexibility for course scheduling and course delivery (DiMaria, 2007; Pekow, 2007). Unfortunately, at FPCUs, considerable increases in minority student enrollment rates, progress, and success (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2010) have been contrasted with lower graduation rates (NCES, 2010), substantially higher attrition rates (Donini-Lenhoff & Brotherton, 2010), and excessive student loan defaults (Clark, 2011; Lewis, 2008).

Despite sub-par persistence rates, negative financial implications, and the scarcity of research on FPCUs, an increasing number of racial and ethnic minorities, particularly Black students, regard and utilize the FPCU as a practical option for pursuing higher education studies (Garten, 2001; Hentschke et al., 2010). This article presents research and literature on the continued phenomenon of the rising FPCU and the implications for racial and ethnic minorities in the higher education landscape. An extrapolation of the literature and data provides an overview of the patterns and trends, successes, and challenges for urban Black males, specifically. Recommendations for practice and policy to improve the status and success of Black males in FPCU contexts are offered.

Review of Literature

To provide context for this article, it was important to present research on college choice, especially factors related to FPCU choice for Black males. The following highlights extant literature and research concerning the importance of students’ academic experiences, finances, and social background in the college choice process. For the purposes of this article, the FPCU is defined in accordance with the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), a data source through the NCES (2011) which provides information on colleges, universities, and technical and vocational postsecondary institutions in the United States (NCES, 2011). The FPCU refers to any private institution controlled by a private individual(s) or by a non-governmental agency in which the individual(s) or agency in control receives compensation other than wages, rent, or other expenses for the assumption of risk. FPCUs are usually supported primarily by private funds and operated by non-publicly elected or appointed officials (IPEDS, 2011).

Factors Influencing College Choice and the FPCU

In general, college choice is a complex process, and researchers have approached the phenomenon using a variety of lenses (Strayhorn, Blakewood, & DeVita, 2008), including academic, economic, and sociological frameworks, in an effort to examine and understand the various factors that affect the college choice process (Alwin & Otto, 1977; Cabrera & LaNasa, 2000; Campaign & Hossler, 1998; Horvat, 1996; Hossler, Braxton, & Coopersmith, 1989; Jackson, 1982; Kelpe Kern, 2000; Paulsen & St. John, 2002). Other models for college choice suggest that the process occurs in stages (Hossler & Gallagher, 1987; Kotler & Fox, 1985; Litten, 1982). Evidence has suggested that these stages are characterized by students’ socioeconomic status, family characteristics, high school academic experiences, financing, and race/ethnicity (Abraham & Clark, 2006; Flint, 1993; Griffith & Rask, 2007; Hossler et al., 1989; Kane, 2007; McDonough, 1997; Perna, 2000; Stage & Hossler, 1989).

When attempting to situate the content of this article in the literature concerning college choice, the literature and research with respect to FPCUs, especially Black males’ choice to attend FPCUs, are quite scarce. However, there has been some research indicating that race is a salient factor and influential in the FPCU college choice process. Collison (1998) noted that minority males, in particular, are more likely to choose a FPCU because they seek a more practical education in a shorter time than that offered at a traditional 4-year institution. Sheldon (2009) added that community college students of color, particularly Black Americans, were more likely to transfer to for-profit institutions than White students, even when they qualified for admission to more selective institutions.

In addition, economic factors have also been significant in the college choice process with regard to FPCUs. Iloh (2014), who has studied Black student participation at FPCUs, found that students opt for FPCUs believing the investment in schooling will positively translate to job placement. Furthermore, low-income students, often from Black and Latino communities, have been a targeted population for marketing and recruitment at FPCUs (Donini-Lenhoff & Brotherton, 2010; Iloh & Tierney, 2013). This has been further evidenced by the percentages of low-income enrolled students at these institutions. The NCES (2000) reported in 1995-1996 that 26% of all undergraduates at postsecondary institutions were low income; however, 48% of students at private FPCUs were low income. Similarly, Chung (2009) found that students from low-income families were more likely to choose for-profit institutions as an option for pursuing postsecondary studies. The concentrated efforts on technical training at many FPCUs are a major attraction for many low-income students, who are often minority students as well. Farrell (2003) posited that the ability of FPCUs to teach students skills with real world applicability particularly resonates with low income, minority students as many are first-generation; the implications for economic stability take precedence over intellectual development. For low-income students, the economic benefit is a chief motivator for attending college (Mortenson, as cited in Farrell, 2003).

History of and Proliferation of FPCUs

Historically, economics have always played an integral role in the development of FPCUs. In fact, U.S. for-profit institutions have roots as far back as the 17th century when proprietary institutions prepared individuals for trades and educated students on basic reading and writing skills (Kirp, 2003). During that time, Dutch settlers established private, evening schools in America, and as the colonies and commerce developed and expanded, the demand for educating individuals in disciplines such as surveying, navigation, and accounting grew as well (Ruch, 2001).

Later in the late colonial period and through the mid-19th century, there grew a demand for instruction in the areas of business, farming, and engineering that traditional institutions of that era were unable to satisfy. During the 19th century, successful for-profit agricultural and business schools began to surface (Ruch, 2001). Contemporary FPCUs can most likely trace their lineage to proprietary business schools that surfaced during this time (Bennett, Lucchesi, & Vedder, 2010).

FPCUs generally concentrate on providing an educational product all while seeking profit (Lechuga, 2008). While traditional colleges and universities often are dependent on government appropriations, external funding, and private donations, FPCUs must be self-reliant and respond to market forces to be successful. They are known for their employment of multiple, innovative, and alternative techniques of delivery, utilization, and incorporation of newer technologies to a greater degree than their not-for-profit counterparts. Moreover, FPCUs are not restricted to practice and are less likely to deliver services by the traditional academic calendar. The exponential growth of for-profit institutions has been associated with the diversity in institutions and offerings this higher education sector provides. The scope of FPCUs extends from smaller vocational and technical schools that offer hands-on career training, to large fully accredited colleges and university systems that offer a traditional collegiate classroom experience. Although many for-profit schools offer non-degree programs and technical certificates, others award associate, bachelor’s, and graduate and professional degrees.

The proliferation of FPCUs in the 20th century spawned from the end of World War II, when federal financial assistance for students increased and for-profit schools were allowed to accept the legislation’s benefits. In addition, the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act in 1972 boosted the production of FPCUs; students were now allowed to use tuition subsidies, such as the Pell Grant, at for-profit institutions (Brenneman, Pusser, & Turner, 2006). According to a 2001 report by the Education Commission of the States (ECS), there was a 78% growth of 2-year FPCUs between 1989 and 1999. During that same 10-year period, 4-year FPCUs grew exponentially by 266% (Kelly, 2001). By the close of the 1990s, nearly 30% of all 2-year degree granting institutions were FPCUs (Kelly, 2001). Today, FPCUs educate nearly 15% of the 19 million students in higher education (Wilson, 2010).

Current FPCU Enrollment Trends and Patterns

For the last 30 years, FPCUs have demonstrated remarkable growth with respect to the number of institutions and boosting enrollments for traditional transitioning high school students, as well as first-time and returning adult learners (NCES, 2010). For-profit universities have also become a viable destination for community college transfer students (Sheldon, 2009). Although once solely characterized as small, proprietary schools, many FPCUs are now classified as a major component of the postsecondary sector complete with the policies and practices of publicly traded university systems (Kinser, 2006).

Because of the influx of large, for-profit university systems, FPCUs have been able to attract considerable numbers of students. Collectively, the major FPCU systems enrolled more than 185,000 students in the year 2000 (Ruch, 2001). Front runners have been the University of Phoenix, which enrolled more than half of the students within the publicly traded 4-year, for-profit category, and DeVry, Inc., which accounted for more than 25% of student enrollment (Ruch, 2001). By the start of the millennium, popular proprietary institutions demonstrated even more substantial enrollment numbers, as evidenced by Education Management Corporation’s (EMC) Art Institute and Argosy University campuses. Together, they enrolled some 136,000 students (Jacobsen, 2001). By 2010, the University of Phoenix had increased its enrollment nearly 20-fold, enrolling nearly a half million students compared with 25,000 in 1995 (Wilson, 2010). Today, DeVry Inc. and Kaplan University enroll upward of 100,000 students (Wilson, 2010). In general, the United States has experienced an enormous growth rate at FPCUs, averaging 319% between 1996 and 2008 (The Chronicle of Higher Education, 2010).

When examining minority enrollment, evidence has suggested that minorities are choosing to attend private, for-profit institutions (Comarcho, 2009). FPCUs in general enroll a disproportionate number of racial and ethnic minorities. In 2008, a higher percentage of Black students attended private for-profit institutions than of any other race or ethnicity (NCES, 2010). Between 2004 and 2010, Black enrollment in FPCU bachelor’s degree programs increased by an impressive 264%, compared with a 24% increase in Black enrollment in public 4-year programs (Wright, 2013). In fact, FPCUs have the largest proportion of minority students with the exception of institutions established for the purpose of educating minority students or those classified as minority serving institutions (MSIs) such as historically Black colleges and universities (NCES, 2010). Nearly one half of the enrollment at DeVry, ITT Technical Institute, and Strayer University is minority students (Farrell, 2003). Burgeoning minority enrollment is especially evidenced with increasing percentages of Black Americans and in specific disciplines. For example, in the allied health field, the percentage of Black student enrollment at FPCUs increased from 17.6% in 1989-1990 to 34% in 2006-2007; the percentages for White students declined during that same time period from 66.4% to 42.2% (Donini-Lenhoff & Brotherton, 2010).

When examining FPCU enrollment trends for males, the extant literature has shown that African American men have enrolled in FPCUs in greater numbers (Arbona & Nora, 2004; Harvey, 2003). In fact, many of the larger proprietary institutions enroll substantial percentages of Black males with Devry leading at 21.7%, Corinthian College follows closely with 21.3%, and ITT Technical Institute with 12% (Farrell, 2003). The University of Phoenix has enjoyed similar success as well with this population (Rhodes, 2001). The aforementioned enrollment percentages demonstrate that FPCUs have been a major contributor in diversifying the higher education landscape with respect to providing access to postsecondary education for many racial and ethnic minorities, especially Black males, who might not have otherwise had such opportunities.

FPCU Implications for Black Male Success

Access and participation

Part of FPCU providers’ success may be due in part to their innovative and targeted marketing and recruitment strategies. FPCUs often engage in direct-to-consumer marketing of the programs through a variety of media outlets (Donini-Lenhoff & Brotherton, 2010). These may include television advertising, savvy and sophisticated websites, digital and video brochures, online chatting and instant messaging with recruiters and support services administrators, and virtual learning experiences. For example, DeVry has opted to utilize ethnic media outlets like Black Entertainment Television to reach their target audiences of Black Americans (Farrell, 2003). In addition, FPCUs also have a history of positioning themselves in urban areas and are therefore more visible and accessible to low-income, minority students (Kinser, 2006). Pusser (as cited in Farrell, 2003) stated that FPCUs tend to situate themselves in large metropolitan areas where larger concentrations of racial and ethnic minorities reside. This has positive implications for Black college-going men as they tend to disparately populate such areas and, thus, have greater access to these institutions. The location alone of some FPCUs can be incredibly appealing as many of attendees are first-generation and may not have considered going away to college. Moreover, students who have cultural ties to urban metropolitan communities may be less inclined to live on campus at a traditional institution. FPCUs also reach out to students who are less financially informed and educated (Farrell, 2003). Institutions, such as ITT Technical Institute, become even more attractive as they staff more financial aid counselors and keep their financial aid offices open in the evenings and on weekends to accommodate students.

Proponents of FPCUs have pointed out that FPCUs have had phenomenal success with minority students. Working adult students, who are underserved or not served at all by traditional colleges and universities, are especially attracted to the FPCU because it offers more open admission criteria and flexible course scheduling and delivery options (Rendon, as cited in DiMaria, 2007). FPCUs are often seen by minority and non-traditional students as convenient, speedy, responsive, and customer-oriented—aspects that not-for-profit institutions may not offer (Bailey, Badway, & Gumport, 2001; Flores, as cited in DiMaria, 2007). Scholars have posited that the FPCU presents opportunities for students searching for a practical, flexible education that leads to immediate employment and income (Harding, 2010). These students are less concerned about the collegiate social life and are looking to accomplish their educational goals in the most effective manner possible. The emphasis has been on low-income, minority students who desire an institution that secures a process for hands-on, technical training in a popular and income generating field. Miller (as cited in DiMaria, 2007) contended that low-income minority students see that they are less likely to graduate from a traditional 4-year college or university and see the FPCU as the only opportunity to succeed at college and improve the lives of themselves and their families, despite influential background characteristics such as academic underpreparedness and/or difficult financial history.

Academic and social integration

Evidence has suggested that minority students, particularly Black males, have also enjoyed academic and social success at FPCUs. In a study examining the perceptions of Black and Latino males attending for-profit institutions, Comarcho (2009) found that students enjoyed opportunities for accelerated learning and working in groups for academic projects. Furthermore, Black males established meaningful relationships with faculty and peers both inside and outside of the classroom. FPCUs have also been touted for their abilities to engage the learning space with the realistic expectations and demands of the working space. For example, Klor de Alva, senior vice president for academic excellence at the University of Phoenix, postulated that progressing for the majority of today’s workforce means working and learning at the same time, in addition to meeting family and community commitments (as cited in DiMaria, 2007). Supporters of FPCUs maintain that the traditional 4-year college or university often requires highly competitive admission criteria with rigid curricula of foundational courses and prerequisites that promote a survival of the fittest mentality. Conversely FPCUs, especially career colleges, have been noted for working with students in providing access-driven admission criteria, remedial help, support through tutoring and counseling, and concentrated, market-driven curricula and programs with strong and comprehensive job-placement services upon graduation (DiMaria, 2007).

Degree obtainment outcomes

In addition to minority success for access and engagement, FPCUs have also demonstrated positive completion outcomes. FPCUs have been commended, as they are major producers of degrees earned by racial and ethnic minorities, especially Blacks. For instance, in the 2005-2006 academic years, 39% of degrees conferred at career colleges—for-profit postsecondary institutions that provide professional, career-specific education programs—were awarded to minority students, compared with 19% at public and 16% at private non-for-profit institutions (Miller, as cited in DiMaria, 2007). In that same year, 21% of all Black Americans who earned an associate’s degree did so at a career college. Using data collected by the NCES, Diverse: Issues in Higher Education (2010) showed that in 2009-2010, University of Phoenix ranked number one in awarding associate’s degrees to Black students, with Black males representing nearly more than 28% of all associate degrees awarded to Blacks at University of Phoenix during academic year 2011. Likewise, in that same year, University of Phoenix ranked number one in awarding bachelor’s degrees to Black students. The University particularly showcased higher percentages for Black males who comprised more than 22% of all bachelor’s degrees awarded to Blacks at the University that year. Ashford University, another FPCU, followed closely behind (Wright, 2013). The numbers are further illuminated when examining conferred bachelor’s degrees for specific disciplines. Beasley (as cited in Pekow, 2007) found that in some business and computer-related disciplines, FPCUs assumed roles traditionally associated with Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) as producers of disproportionately larger percentages of Black degree recipients. Beasley’s findings were reiterated again in 2009-2010 when University of Phoenix, Devry-Illinois, and Strayer University-Virginia ranked first, fourth, and sixth, respectively, for awarding baccalaureate degrees in business, management, marketing, and related support services to Black students.

Similarly, University of Phoenix ranked number one in producing Black graduates in health professions and related programs, outpacing Winston–Salem State University and Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University (both are HBCUs), which ranked third and fourth, respectively. Moreover, even when considering advanced degrees of study, FPCUs still have ranked disproportionately higher than non-profit institutions in awarding master’s and doctorate degrees. In 2008-2009, University of Phoenix conferred the largest percentage of master’s degrees across all disciplines for Black students; Black males represented 21.4% of all master’s degrees conferred to Black students at University of Phoenix that year. The next academic year, 2009-2010, the top five Black doctorate producers were all FPCUs. Capella University ranked number one conferring the largest percentage of doctorates across all disciplines to Black Americans; Black males represented 28.4% of all doctorate degrees conferred to Black students at Capella University that year.

Challenges and Criticisms

Although the literature has pointed to varying minority student success at FPCUs, this growing sector of the higher education landscape has not escaped criticism. Many have presented counter narratives to the aforementioned FPCU success stories, namely, concerns about lower quality education due in part to substantial numbers of part-time faculty, lack of liberal arts education, fewer facilities, fewer classroom hours with instructors, and lesser investment in students (Field, 2011; Harding, 2010). According to Bennett et al. (2010), FPCUs invest the least amount per student among all sectors of higher education, spending on average US$9,758 per student in 2008-2009, while public colleges invested nearly double that amount and private non-profits spent nearly 4 times as much. In a 2001 report concerning the rise of FPCUs, Kelly stated,

The sharpest critics contend that the for-profit motive is not compatible with academic values, and that quality suffers when quantity is paramount: substandard admission criteria, superficial curricula, and low expectations for student performance. While these programs meet the needs of certain types of students, critics argue their degrees are not “true” degrees like the liberal-arts-based associate’s and bachelor’s degrees awarded by traditional institutions.

Kelly’s (2001) sentiment has been echoed and evidenced in the literature examining FPCU higher attrition rates, lower graduation rates, and sub-par management and performance of federal student aid programs. In addition, opponents have argued that FPCUs focus on skills and training necessary to gain employment, but fail to develop students as engaged citizens (Flores, as cited in Farrell, 2003).

Other criticisms of the FPCU sector include its aggressive marketing strategies, and some for-profit institutions have even been sanctioned in the past for overly forceful marketing and enrollment tactics (Seiden, 2009). FPCU owners have been involved in questionable practices with allegations of targeting and admitting academically unqualified low-income students and falsely guaranteeing a brighter future. DiMaria (2007) indicated that some FPCU recruiters even went as far as having an intentional presence around welfare offices, recruiting unknowing students, and then collecting their government checks as tuition payment.

Persistence and attrition

By far, FPCU criticism does not end at lackluster investing in students and questionable marketing strategies. Graduation rates across all sectors of U.S. higher education are dreadful at best (Bennett et al., 2010). Interestingly enough, for-profit institutions have the highest graduation rate (within 150% of normal time) among public, private non-profit, and private for-profit institutions, when all programs are considered (NCES, 2007). Optimism, however, may be premature; for-profit institutions have the lowest 6-year graduation rate when only bachelor’s degree programs are considered (NCES, 2007). Researchers have suggested that these data reflect that for-profits may be better than the other higher education sectors at graduating students in shorter degree programs, but are not as successful in their ability to help students persist through a bachelor’s degree program (Bennett et al., 2010).

The persistence and attrition rates for bachelor’s degree completion are often further amplified for racial and ethnic minority students in specific disciplines. For example, Donini-Lenhoff and Brotherton (2010) found that racial and ethnic minority students in allied health majors and programs had higher attrition rates at for-profit schools versus other types of institutions. The researchers reported that in the 2006-2007 academic year, Black students in allied health programs experienced higher attrition rates than their White counterparts, 32.7% compared with 25.3%.

Student debt versus gainful employment

Unfortunately, the minority student shortcomings in persistence and attrition rates at FPCUs only complicate the growing concern of student debt and lack of gainful employment, post completion. Of the nearly 18 million students enrolled in U.S. Title IV institutions, 1.3 million were enrolled in private for-profit schools (DiMaria, 2007). Fraud and abuse of federal student aid programs have been said to predominantly involve proprietary schools (Higgins, as cited in DiMaria, 2007). Many, including President Obama, have voiced harsh criticism concerning student debt and gainful employment at FPCUs (Iloh & Toldson, 2013; Wright, 2013). Like many others, President Obama has expressed that some for-profit colleges are taking advantage of students financially (Fain & Jaschik, 2013). FPCUs have been lambasted for providing the least certain educational and economic advantages (Bound, Lovenheim, & Turner, 2010).

According to Wright (2013), nearly every single graduate of a FPCU leaves with debt. Black students were the most likely to borrow to pay for college of all racial/ethnic groups (Cunningham & Santiago, 2008). In 2003-2004, 43% of Black undergraduate students borrowed to pay for college compared with 35% of all undergraduates. This borrowing pattern was consistent for Black students at all types of institutions—including private, for-profit institutions. FPCUs adversely contribute to this pattern, as evidenced by Mullin’s (2010) findings. In general, FPCUs have tuition and fees considerably higher than those of non-profit community colleges, thus requiring more than 90% of their students to draw loans, compared with just over 10% at community colleges. In 2011-2012, nearly one half of all African American undergraduate students borrowed federal loans to pay for college and approximately 9% borrowed as much as US$10,000 for the year (Baum, 2013). But, among those enrolled in FPCUs, three quarters borrowed federal loans, and 15% borrowed US$10,000 or more for the year (Baum, 2013).

The higher percentages of loan borrowing and loan amounts among African American students are especially troubling because students having attended FPCUs have the highest federal loan default rates among all sectors of higher education (Bennett et al., 2010). During the 2007 fiscal year, nearly 11% of former for-profit students defaulted on their student loans; the default rates for public and private non-profit students were considerably lower at 5.9% and 3.7%, respectively. Opponents of FPCUs suggest that high default rates are an indication that FPCUs encourage their students to borrow excessively and then provide them with an education of questionable quality that leaves students unable to achieve the career success necessary to make satisfactory loan payments. Even the federal government has stepped in to voice concern. Recently, gainful employment regulations have been enacted to hold specific career-oriented programs at FPCUs accountable for whether their students secure jobs and earn a living wage after graduating. The new regulations will hit FPCUs especially hard, as students will no longer be able to use federal financial aid for programs where graduates have annual loan payments greater than 12% of their total earnings and greater than 30% of their discretionary earnings (Bidwell, 2014).

Discussion and Implications for Black Males

The abovementioned text highlights the profile of the FPCU within the context of minority student access and success, and further showcases the importance for discussion relevant to Black males specifically, as adult Black comprise 5.5% of all college students (Toldson & Lewis, 2012). In fact, Toldson and Lewis (2012) have asserted that the number and percentage of Black men who earn a college degree is increasing, with each decade. Specifically, for Black men more than the age of 25, there has been an increase from 11.1% in 1990, to 13.2% in 2000, and nearly 16% in 2010. Toldson and Lewis also posited that many of these Black men are attending FPCUs.

At one point in time, FPCUs were considered outside of the mainstream of U.S. higher education. Now, they have become an essential and tremendously influential element of the higher education environment. Although they have been fraught with challenge and criticism, FPCUs continue to strive for and earn respect in the higher education landscape, due in part to increased scrutiny and more thorough federal oversight and accreditation standards. Some opponents are resistant to viewing education as a product and make claims that FPCUs are selling students an expensive dream, but ultimately leave them with the nightmare of a degree of no value and an incredible amount of debt. However, as educators and researchers, we must recognize the track record of for-profit education and consider that if the industry as a whole were providing a product of little to no value, then customers (students) would be aware of this and opt not to use it, especially when there are other, less expensive avenues for becoming credentialed. The fact is students have not withdrawn from enrolling at FPCUs; demand at for-profits is as strong as ever. In short, we must recognize that FPCUs are likely here to stay. These institutions will continue to make remarkable tread in the higher education landscape, despite criticism, shortfalls, and recent federal regulations. Our Black males will continue to see these institutions as viable options for gaining credentials and springboards for economic success.

With that notion in mind, researchers can begin to move forward to conducting research that better understands the historic role and examines the future impact of FPCUs. Particularly, those who make efforts and work to achieve goals in promoting access and increased participation of racial and ethnic minorities in American higher education would do well to seriously include FPCUs in planning and public policy. Actually, researchers have already agreed that a closer look at FPCUs, especially research concerning Black student experiences, should extend well beyond issues access and carefully assess the manner in which the role of for-profit colleges work to narrow or aggravate existing inequalities (Iloh & Toldson, 2013).

The aforementioned literature is the first start to presenting a full picture for Black male success in FPCU environments. At FPCUs, Black males have enjoyed greater access and participation (Arbona & Nora, 2004; Farrell, 2003; Harvey, 2003); improved academic and social integration (Comarcho, 2009), meaningful relationships with faculty and peers (Comarcho, 2009); and increased degree obtainment, especially at advanced levels (DiMaria, 2007; Wright, 2013). Notwithstanding, there have been increasing, valid concerns about FPCUs’ marketing practices and their students’ likelihood to graduate with higher debt and shaky job placement. Thankfully, there has been consistent, positive attention to this problem, and stakeholders have demanded and effectuated policies to rein in the excesses of some for-profit institutions.

Because FPCUs have been known to attract greater numbers of Black men (Kinser, 2006; Phipps, Harrison, & Merisotis, 1999; Ruch, 2001), it is important to continue to examine how FPCUs contribute to the success of this population. A better understanding of institutional and student characteristics associated with Black male success in FPCUs could yield better recruitment and enrollment strategies. Furthermore, FPCU administrators and practitioners might be better informed for designing curriculum delivery practices and student support services that best meet the needs of this specific population.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Recommendations for Additional Research

The for-profit industry may not be as guilty as its critics contend, but it certainly is not without blame for its poorer student outcomes. Unfortunately, the scarcity of research and hard evidence about FPCUs continues to inhibit rational discussion and decision making. Moreover, given the greater proportion of minorities attending for-profit institutions, the higher attrition rates, especially for Black students, warrant continued attention and additional study. Additional research is needed to better understand the college choice process for Black males as it relates to FPCUs. Although there has been some literature and data related to FPCUs indicating that tuition is not a factor in the enrollment decisions of minority students (Berg, 2005; Tierney & Hentschke, 2007), relatively little research has challenged assumptions that minorities make enrollment decisions largely based on economics. Because FPCUs often cost much more than other institutions (Mullin, 2010), especially community colleges, the question begs as to why Black men continue to invest in the FPCU experience. Future studies should address and explore the relationship between cost and enrollment behavior.

While FPCUs have received increased attention and study with issues pertaining to governance (Pusser & Turner, 2004), policy (Kirp, 2003), transfer student college choice (Sheldon, 2009), accreditation (Kinser, 2005), and the overall impact these institutions have had on higher education (Ruch, 2001), there has been minimal research examining the academic and social development and experiences of their students. Because FPCUs have experienced higher attrition rates, and academic and social integration has been linked with positive outcomes for performance and persistence for Black students (Chickering, Peters, & Palmer, 2006; Fries-Britt & Turner, 2002; Palmer & Gasman, 2008; Palmer & Strayhorn, 2008; Palmer & Young, 2009), future research might explore how Black students develop and how they are engaged in FPCU settings.

Recommendations for Practice

As mentioned earlier, graduation rates across all sectors of U.S. higher education are dismal. Although FPCUs manage well in graduating students in short-term programs, the rates for graduating baccalaureates has not kept pace. To help Black males specifically, FPCUs might consider bolstering their existing support services programs for individual students to include more targeted efforts with regard to mentoring, academic counseling, and advising services, especially financial aid. The increased scrutiny on student debt at FPCUs presents an opportunity for FPCU administrators and staff to be proactive and responsive in addressing students’ concerns about amassing higher amounts of debt; such strategies might also serve well as retention tools.

In addition, FPCU administrators and faculty might also consider incorporating some of the existing strategies being used in traditional college and university settings such as targeted engagement activities and programs like social activities, career and professional development, and leadership activities. Researchers have suggested that engagement activities positively affect identity development, as well as retention and graduation rates of Black males in college (Harper, 2005; Harper & Quaye, 2007). Spradley (2001) recommended several student engagement interventions to ultimately boost African American male success: (a) increase peer interactions to improve social integration in the academic experience; (b) promote facilitative learning environments with faculty who cultivate accumulated learning, contribute to knowledge acquisition, and encourage hands-on application of learning; and (c) being aware and inclusive of extracurricular learning experiences that enrich learning. In addition, Black male initiatives are another tool for FPCU Black male success; such initiatives have shown considerable positive outcomes on many campuses. For example, Black Men at Western (BMW) is an organization at Western Kentucky University that focuses on promoting Black males to strive for excellence. This organization provides guidance for Black males through mentoring sessions, networking opportunities, and community engagement (Hardeman, Lee, Mayes, & Perez-Velez, 2008). Although research concerning Black male initiatives has been more often aligned with traditional college and university settings, such programs may have implications for positive outcomes with Black males in other institutional contexts, such as FPCUs.

Finally, traditional 2- and 4-year institutions have often instituted living and learning communities for students around particular academic performance, disciplines, cultural characteristics, and student interests. For example, the Male Initiative on Leadership and Excellence (MILE) at Morgan State University is a program sponsored by the University’s Office of Residence Life and Housing. The MILE program seeks to enhance the quality of student life and engagement for male students at Morgan State University by providing students with a plethora of academic support services and social engagement opportunities to create a healthy and holistic campus experience (Palmer, Maramba, & Dancy, 2013). Again, although these programs often include an on-campus living component—an aspect not traditionally offered at FPCUs—FPCU faculty and administrators might consider integrating technology to emulate some of the aforementioned models to create and promote other aspects of community, both learning and social.

Recommendations for Policy

Because of the mandates the current administration has for postsecondary participation and attainment rates, it will be nearly impossible for the nation to dramatically increase participation rates in higher education without the for-profit sector. Therefore, policy should be set to insure that all sectors of higher education, including the for-profit sector, works in tandem for the greater good. Specifically, clear evidence of performance should be gleaned from an industry-wide, useful research program on higher education operations. Governmental oversight is necessary to stymie faulty assumptions and promote more promising outcomes. The absence of such a data-informed relationship among all sectors of higher education will undoubtedly keep this administration’s goals and the nation’s economic productivity at a risk it cannot afford.

In addition to increased governmental oversight and a useful research program on postsecondary performance, policy makers should consider the most critical barriers to FPCU outcomes success. We already know that for-profit students leave FPCUs in substantially more debt and default on loans more than their public sector counterparts (Tierney, 2013). Furthermore, we understand that a disproportionate percentage of Black students (15%), including males, attend private for-profit institutions than of students of any of the other racial or ethnic backgrounds, ranging from 6% to 8% (NCES, 2010). The Department of Education has recently announced a host of debt-relief measures for students who were defrauded by FPCUs that engaged in deceptive practices and falsely promised a high job-placement rate (Lewin, 2015). That is a start, but those measures do not address the masses and fail to specifically support Black male success. Furthermore, the process for students to actually prove fraud to meet the requirements for the Department’s latest measures is arduous at best and leaves a considerable number of students negotiating substantial red tape. The Department of Education and other policy makers should continue to seek regulations which limit or even cut off federal funding for FPCUs that fail to demonstrate they prepare students for gainful employment. Such a tactic would serve as an impetus to distinguish the proverbial “bad apples” among stronger and successful FPCUs.

Conclusion

Clearly, the demand for FPCUs as a viable option for achieving postsecondary goals remains high. The for-profit industry as a whole has sustained notable success outcomes for its students, inclusive of minorities, particularly Black males. With its innovative practices and unconventional delivery of educational services, for-profit higher education has created a significant pipeline and made for an attractive choice for Black male students (Collison, 1998; Donini-Lenhoff & Brotherton, 2010). Furthermore, data from the NCES (2014) show that males attending private for-profit institutions had a higher graduation rate than females (35% vs. 28%).

It is evident that FPCUs will continue to play a pivotal role in molding access, participation, and success for minority students, particularly Black males. A primary reason is that secondary schools that educate the largest percentage of Black students are often less likely to offer a college bound curriculum (Toldson & Lewis, 2012), thus making the relaxed admission FPCU more attractive and accessible to Black students. Moreover, economic gap between Black and White families and the cost of higher education continue to rise. Those factors make FPCUs, especially their flexibility in course delivery, a more viable option for students who cannot afford to leave their jobs to pursue higher education.

As postsecondary education behaves as a gateway to our understanding of Black male educational, social, and economic experiences and outcomes, it is critical that we continue to examine the higher education landscape. Our current understanding of Black male student success has been drastically inadequate as postsecondary institutions with disproportionate percentages of Black students have the smallest presence in the literature (Iloh & Toldson, 2013). As a community, we must continue to be intentional and deliberate about our research on Black males in postsecondary settings. We have an obligation to conduct research which promotes critical discussion and real change. We must move beyond issues of just access, and prudently evaluate the manner in which the role of FPCUs tighten or aggravate existing gaps relative to Black male student success.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biography

Tiffany F. Boykin is an assistant professor in the Department of Advanced Studies, Leadership and Policy at Morgan State University. Boykin’s research interests have focused on access, participation, and outcomes for racially minoritzed students in collegiate settings. Specifically, Boykin has primarily examined graduate education, the role of historically black colleges and universities, for-profit and community college education, and legal aspects of urban postsecondary education.

References

Abraham

K. G.

Clark

M. A.

(2006). Financial aid and students’ college decisions: Evidence from the District of Columbia Tuition Assistance Grant Program. Journal of Human Resources, 41, 578-610.

Alwin

Otto

(1977). High school context effects on aspiration. Sociology of Education, 50, 259-273.

Arbona

Nora

(2004). Predicting college attainment of Hispanic students: Individual, institutional, and environmental factors. Review of Higher Education, 30, 247-270.

Bailey

Badway

Gumport

P. J.

(2001). For-profit higher education and community colleges (Technical report, National Center for Postsecondary Improvement). Stanford, CA: Stanford University.

Baum

(2013, August 22). Where do African American students go to college? Metrotrends Blog. Retrieved from http://blog.metrotrends.org/2013/08/african-american-students-college/

Bennett

D. L.

Lucchesi

A. R.

Vedder

R. K.

(2010). For-profit higher education: Growth, innovation, and regulation. Washington, DC: Center for College Afford-ability and Productivity.

Berg

G. A.

(2005). Reform higher education with capitalism? Doing good and making money at for-profit universities. Change, 37, 28-34.

Bidwell

(2014, October 30). Education department’s gainful employment rules rebuffed. U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved from http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/10/30/obama-administrations-gainful-employment-rules-upset-student-groups-for-profits

Bound

Lovenheim

M. F.

Turner

(2010). Why have college completion rates declined? An analysis of changing student preparation and collegiate resources. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 2, 129-157.

10.

Brenneman

D. W.

Pusser

Turner

S. E.

(2006). Earnings from learning: The rise of for-profit universities. New York, NY: State University of New York Press.

11.

Cabrera

A. F.

LaNasa

S. M.

(2000). Understanding the college choice of disadvantaged students: New directions for institutional research, No. 107. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

12.

Campaign

D. A.

Hossler

(1998). How do loans affect the educational decisions of students? Access, aspirations, college choice, and persistence. In Fossey

Bateman

(Eds.), Condemning students to debt: College loans and public policy (pp. 85-104). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

13.

Chickering

A. W.

Peters

Palmer

R. T.

(2006). Assessing the impact of the Morgan Male Initiative on Leadership and Excellence (MILE). Baltimore, MD: Morgan State University.

14.

The Chronicle of Higher Education. (2010). Interactive mapping tool: An enrollment surge at for-profit colleges (1998-2008). Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Interactive-Map-Enrollment/64031/

15.

Chung

A. S.

(2009). Choice of for-profit college (Unpublished paper). Retrieved from http://sitemaker.umich.edu/astchung/files/chung0709fpchoice.pdf

16.

Clark

J. B.

(2011, May). The real deal on for-profit colleges. Kiplinger’s Personal Finance, 65(5), 64-68.

17.

Collison

(1998). Proprietary preference—For-profit colleges. Black Issues in Higher Education. Retrieved from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0DXK/is_nl0_vl5/ai_21117465

18.

Comarcho

(2009). African American and Hispanic male perceptions of effective and ineffective retention strategies, and the implications for undergraduate persistence in a for-profit commuter university (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton.

19.

Cunningham

A. F.

Santiago

(2008). Student aversion top borrowing: Who borrows and who doesn’t. Washington, DC: Institution of Higher Education Policy.

20.

Deming

Claudia

Katz

L. F.

(2012). The for-profit postsecondary school sector: Nimble critters or agile predators? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26, 139-164.

21.

Dill

D. D.

(2005). The public good, the public interest, and public higher education. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Retrieved from http://www.unc.edu/ppaq/docs/PublicvsPrivate.pdf

22.

DiMaria

(2007, September). For-profits and career colleges popular with minorities. The Hispanic Outlook in Higher Education, pp. 20-23.

23.

Diverse: Issues in Higher Education. (2010). Top 100 producers of minority degrees 2010. Fairfax, VA: Cox, Mathews, and Associates, Inc.

24.

Donini-Lenhoff

F. G.

Brotherton

S. E.

(2010). Racial-ethnic diversity in allied health: The continuing challenge. Journal of Allied Health, 39, 104-109.

25.

Fain

Jaschik

(2013, August 26). Obama on for-profits. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/08/26/obama-speaks-directly-profit-higher-education-noting-concerns-sector

26.

Farrell

E. F.

(2003, October). Public college tuition rise is largest in three decades. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 50, 1A.

27.

Field

(2011, May 8). Faculty at for-profits allege pressure to keep students enrolled: Instructors say they have been encouraged to dumb down courses and change failing grades. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Pawns-in-the-For-Profit/127424/

28.

Flint

T. A.

(1993). Early awareness of college financial aid: Does it expand choice? Review of Higher Education, 16, 309-327.

29.

Floyd

C. E.

(2005). For profit degree-granting colleges: Who are these guys and what do they mean for students, traditional institutions, and public policy? In Smart

J. C.

(Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 539-589). Dordrecht, Germany: Kluwer.

30.

Fries-Britt

S. L.

Turner

(2002). Uneven stories: Successful Black collegians at a Black and a White campus. Review of Higher Education, 25, 315-330.

31.

Garten

E. D.

(2001). Online and for-profit graduate education: A challenge of understanding and accommodation for academic librarianship. Technical Services Quarterly, 19(3), 1-20.

32.

Griffith

Rask

(2007). The influence of the U.S. News and World Report collegiate rankings on the matriculation decision of high-ability students: 1995-2004. Economics of Education Review, 26, 244-255.

33.

Hardeman

Lee

Mayes

Perez-Velez

(2008). Exploring the special needs of minority males (CNS 572). The College Student Experience. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.wku.edu/cns/3

34.

Harding

D. J.

(2010). For-profit colleges, educational attainment, and labor market outcomes. Retrieved from http://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/research/project-detail/34723

35.

Harper

S. R.

(2005). Leading the way: Inside the experience of high-achieving African American male students. About Campus, 10(1), 8-15.

36.

Harper

S. R.

Quaye

S. J.

(2007). Student organizations as venues for Black identity expression and development among African American male student leaders. Journal of College Student Development, 48, 127-144.

37.

Harvey

W. B.

(2003). Minorities in higher education: Twentieth annual status report 2002-2003. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

38.

Hentschke

G. C.

Lechuga

V. M.

Tierney

W. G.

(2010). For-profit colleges and universities: Their markets, regulation, performance, and place in higher education. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

39.

Horvat

E. M.

(1996, November). Boundaries of belonging and postsecondary access: African American students and college choice decision-making in social context. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Memphis, TN.

40.

Hossler

Braxton

Coopersmith

(1989). Understanding student college choice. In Smart

J. C.

(Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 231-288). New York, NY: Agathon Press.

41.

Hossler

Gallagher

K. S.

(1987). Studying student college choice: A three-phase model and the implications for policymakers. College and University, 62, 207-221.

42.

Iloh

(2014). A critical comparison of website marketing at for-profit colleges & community colleges. National Association of Student Affairs Professionals Journal, 15(2), 91-106.

43.

Iloh

Tierney

W. G.

(2013). A comparison of for-profit and community colleges’ admissions practices. College and University, 88, 2-12.

44.

Iloh

Toldson

I. A.

(2013). Black students in 21st century higher education: A closer look at for-profit and community colleges. Journal of Negro Education, 82, 205-212.

45.

Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System. (2011). Glossary. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

46.

Jackson

(1982). Public efficiency and private choice in higher education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 4, 237-247.

47.

Jacobsen

(2001, July 20). Argosy acquired by for-profit rival. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Argosy-Acquired-by-For-Profit/32098/

48.

Kane

(2007). Evaluating the impact of the DC Tuition Assistance Grant Program. Journal of Human Resources, 42, 555-582.

49.

Kelly

(2001). Meeting needs and making profits: The rise of the for-profit degree granting institution. Education Commission of the States. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED456689.pdf

50.

Kelpe Kern

C. W

. (2000). College choice influences: Urban high school students respond. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 24, 487-495.

51.

Kinser

(2005). A profile of regionally accredited for-profit institutions of higher education. In Pusser

(Ed.), New Directions for Higher Education, No. 129: Arenas of entrepreneurship: Where nonprofit and for-profit institutions compete (pp. 69-84). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

52.

Kinser

(2006). From main street to wall street: The transformation of for-profit higher education (ASHE Higher Education Report) volume 31 (pp. 1-155). Las Vegas, NV: Jossey-Bass.

53.

Kirp

D. L.

(2003). Education for-profit. Public Interest, 152, 100-106.

54.

Kotler

Fox

K. F.

(1985). Strategic marketing for educational institutions. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

55.

Lechuga

V. M.

(2008). Assessment, knowledge, and customer service: Contextualizing faculty work at for-profit colleges and universities. Review of Higher Education, 31, 287-307.

56.

Lewin

(2015, June 9). Questions of cost in plan to aid defrauded students. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/10/education/questions-of-cost-in-plan-to-aid-defrauded-corinthian-colleges-students.html?ref=topics&;_r=0

57.

Lewis

A. C.

(2008). Student loan defaults and career colleges. Tech Directions, 67(8), 6.

58.

Litten

(1982). Different strokes in the applicant pool: Some refinements in a model of student college choice. Journal of Higher Education, 53, 383-402.

59.

McDonough

P. M.

(1997). Choosing colleges: How social class and schools structure opportunity. Albany: State University of New York Press.

60.

Mullin

C. M.

(2010, November). Just how similar? Community colleges and the for-profit sector (Policy Brief 2010-04PBL). Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges.

61.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). Low income students: Who they are and how they pay for their education. Washington, DC: Author.

62.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). Graduation rates. Washington, DC: Author.

63.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). Status and trends in the education of racial and ethnic minorities. Washington, DC: Author.

64.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). Integrated postsecondary education data system. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/

65.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2014). The condition of education 2014: Institutional retention and graduation rates for undergraduate students. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=40

66.

Palmer

R. T.

Gasman

(2008). It takes a village to raise a child: The role of social capital in promoting success for African American men at a Black college. Journal of College Student Development, 49(1), 52-70.

67.

Palmer

R. T.

Maramba

D. C.

Dancy

T. E.

(2013). The magnificent “MILE”: Impacting Black male retention and persistence at an HBCU. Journal of College Student Retention, 15(1), 65-72.

68.

Palmer

R. T.

Strayhorn

(2008). Mastering one’s own Fate: Non-cognitive factors associated with the success of African American males at an HBCU. National Association of Student Affairs Professionals Journal, 11(1), 126-143.

69.

Palmer

R. T.

Young

E. M.

(2009). Determined to succeed: Salient factors that foster academic success for academically unprepared Black males at a Black college. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 10(4), 465-482.

70.

Paulsen

M. B.

St. John

E. P.

(2002). Social class and college costs: Examining the financial nexus between college choice and persistence. The Journal of Higher Education, 73, 189-239.

71.

Pekow

(2007). For-profit schools popular destination for minorities. Diverse: Issues in Higher Education, 23(26), 19-19.

72.

Perna

L. W.

(2000). Differences in the decision to attend college among African Americans, Hispanics, and Whites. Journal of Higher Education, 71, 117-141.

73.

Phipps

Harrison

Merisotis

(1999). Students at private, for-profit institutions (NCES Report No. 2000-175). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

74.

Pusser

Turner

S. E.

(2004). Nonprofit and for-profit governance in higher education. In Ehrenberg

R. G.

(Ed.), Governing academia (pp. 235-527), Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

75.

Rhodes

F. T.

(2001). The role of the American University. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

76.

Ruch

R. S.

(2001). Higher Ed, Inc.: The rise of the for-profit university. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

77.

Seiden

M. J.

(2009, June 29). For-profit colleges deserve some respect. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/article-content/46985/

78.

Sheldon

C. Q.

(2009). Predictors of transfer to 4-year, for-profit institutions. Community College Review, 37, 34-52.

79.

Silber

J. M.

(2006, February). Equity research: Education and training. New York, NY: U.S. BMO Capital Markets.

80.

Snyder

Hoffman

(2003). Digest of education statistics (NCES Report No. 2003060). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

81.

Spradley

(2001). Strategies for educating the adult black male in college (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED464524). Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education.

82.

Stage

E. K.

Hossler

(1989). Differences in family influences on college attendance plans for male and female ninth graders. Research in Higher Education, 30, 301-315.

83.

Strayhorn

T. L.

Blakewood

A. M.

DeVita

J. M.

(2008). Factors affecting the college choice and retention of African American gay male undergraduates. NASAP Journal, 45, 88-108.

84.

Tierney

W. G.

(2013). Challenges facing for profit higher education and America. Southern Education Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.southerneducation.org/Resource-Center/SEF-Blog/SEF-Blog-(1)/August-2014/Challenges-Facing-For-Profit-Higher-Education-and.aspx

85.

Tierney

W. G.

Hentschke

G. C.

(2007). New players, different game: Understanding the rise of for-profit colleges and universities. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

86.

Toldson

I. A.

Lewis

C. W.

(2012). Challenge the status quo: Academic success among school-age African American males. Washington, DC: Congressional Black Caucus Foundation.

87.

Wilson

(February, 2010). The profit motive: For-profit colleges change higher education’s landscape: Nimble companies gain a fast-growing share of enrollments. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 56(22), A1-A19.

88.

Wright

(2013). Young, black and buried: How for-profit colleges prey on African-American ambition. Retrieved from http://www.salon.com/2013/06/09/young_black_and_buried_in_debt_how_for_profit_colleges_prey_on_african_american_ambition/