The Leading Edge of Corporatization in Higher Ed: For-Profit Colleges

Abstract

22 A number of years ago in a meeting with Benno Schmidt, former President of Yale University and current Chair of the City University of New York Board of Trustees, I, as a member of the executive committee of the CUNY Faculty Senate, argued that a certain decision was not wise because it moved the university in a corporate direction. Chair Schmidt’s answer, “Oh, Susan, if only CUNY could be more corporate.” Since the spectacular increase in the number of students in for-pro„t colleges over the last ten years, student debt has skyrocketed (student loan debt exceeded $1 trillion in 2011), the dropout rate at forpro„ts has increased—the 6–year completion rate for B.A. students at Phoenix University is 9% (Howard Hotson, “Short Cuts,” London Review of Books, June 2, 2011), and faculty autonomy in higher education has decreased. Many more faculty serve at the will of their employers, not just at for-pro„ts, but at public and private colleges as well: in other words, without tenure, job security, shared governance, unions, or academic freedom. Increasingly curriculum decisions, driven by the market, are made by administrations and implemented by hired teachers. In for-pro„t colleges faculty are told that they are the servants of the students, who are told that they rule because they cause pro„t to be made. ˜e primary purpose of for-pro„t colleges is to make money for partners (in a privately held company) or for shareholders (in a publicly held corporation). Right now, they do that chiešy by securing federal grants or loans for student tuition, funded by taxpayers’ money, and promising their indebted students quick college degrees and good jobs. Education, if it occurs, is a by-product and not the reason for the existence of for-pro„t colleges (“Education Is the Last ˜ing on ˜eir Minds,” New York Times Editorial, May 5, 2011). Eighty-seven percent of revenue for the 14 largest for-pro„t colleges is from the GI Bill, Pell Grants, Tuition Assistance Program, and other government-backed loans paid for by taxpayers. One-third of the GI Bill goes to for-pro„ts. ˜is is a disproportionate share of federal student aid, given that for-pro„ts enroll only 12% of college students (Joe Nocera, “How to Improve on an F,” New York Times Magazine, September 16, 2011). GI Bill loans are especially sought after because they are not part of Title IV education funds, and (according to the 1988 version of the Higher Education Act) for-pro„t The Leading Edge of Corporatization in Higher Ed: For-Profit Colleges