Luciano Cruz, Moreno Valley College

1. FOR- PROFIT EDUCATION
EFFECT OF LIMITED CULTURAL CAPITAL AND INCREASING DEMAND
FOR ACADEMIC CREDENTIALS ON VULNERABLE STUDENTS’
POPULATIONS.
LUCIANO N. CRUZ, PH.D.

2. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
• The purpose of this study was to examine from the perspectives of students who
attended for-profit colleges:
• 1) What factors compel vulnerable populations to enroll in expensive profit-seeking
institutions.
• 2) How the impact of credentialism and the lack of cultural capital shape the
enrollment of lower-socioeconomic student in for-profit institutions.

3. RESEARCH QUESTION
How do the lack of cultural capital and the demand for academic credentials dictate
educational opportunities and the enrollment of vulnerable students’ population at for-
profit schools?

4. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PROBLEM
• Why lower socioeconomic status students
enroll in expensive for-profit schools.
• For-profit institutions charge higher tuition and
fees than their counterparts in the public
sector.
• Students who attend for-profit schools have a
higher probability of ending up unemployed
and with high student loan debts (Deming,
Goldin, and Katz, 2012).
• Default on student loans among students who
attend for-profit institutions vastly exceeds
those of other institutions of higher education
(U.S Government Accountability Office, 2010).

5. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
• I found important to cover the philosophical discussion between what is considered
higher and lower ed (Cottom 2017).
• The historical background of for-profit sector (Breneman, Pusser, and Turner, 2006).
• The students the sector serves (Millora, 2010, Deming, Goldin, and Katz, 2012;
Cottom, 2010; Steineman, Volshteyn and MacGarret, 2011).
• Contemporary implications related to the sector.
• Diploma Mills (Angulo, 2016)
• Degrees of Deception (Connell, 2016)
• Government Regulations (Bennett, Lucchesi, and Veddr 2010)

6. RESEARCH METHOD
• Qualitative study
• I performed 20 face-to-face semi-structured interviews.
• Participants were asked open-ended questions to capture how they evaluate their experience at for-profit
schools.
• Sample
• 20 students from ten different for-profit colleges in Southern California.
• 14 participants had graduated from their respective institutions.
• 3 are currently enrolled at for-profit schools
• 3 have started programs but did not finish them.
• Purposeful and snowball sampling.
• Participants were recruited at the institutions that I teach.
• Some were referred by their peers
• Some I met at University of Phoenix

7. INSTRUMENTATION
• The semi-structured, face to face interviews consisted of two parts:
• Demographic questions to collect information on participants' background.
• Interview questions aimed to answer the study research question.
• How did you find out about this institution?
• What are (were) the most beneficial aspects of attending this institution.
• Do you feel that the tuition cost matches the quality of the education that you are receiving?
• What were your expectations of this institution prior to your enrollment? Did the institution
live up to your expectations? Please explain.
• Would you recommend this school to other students? Why or why not?

8. POSITIONALITY
• I kept in check personal biases and let the data speaks for itself.
• I am not in favor or against the for-profit schools, I wanted to examine from students’
own perspective how their evaluate their experience at for-profit institutions.
• I deeply enjoyed all of the interviews. Participants were eager to share their
experiences and I felt sincerity in their remarks.

9. DATA ANALYSIS
• Data was organized into two coding phases.
• In the first cycle coding, the data were organized into a Descriptive Coding process.
• Interview responses were transcribed and response of each question were summarized.
• The most important aspects of the interviews were captured in short phrases.
• Different colors were used to distinguish the response of different questions.

10. DATA ANALYSIS
• Second cycle coding.
• Data array from the first cycle coding was organized through the process of
Pattern Coding to identify categories, emergent themes, and explanations.
• Seven categories emerged from this process:
• 1) Convenience, 2) Lack of cultural capital, 3) Need for credentials, 4)
Disappointment, 5) Expensive tuition, and doubtful degrees, 6) Wasting time and
money and 7) Satisfaction with institution.

11. FOUR MAJOR THEMES
• Finally, after another close review of the data in the second cycle coding, the
seven categories were reduced into four major themes.
• 1) Convenience
• 2) Lack of cultural capital
• 3) Need for credentials
• 4) Student satisfaction and recommendation of institution

12. STUDY FINDINGS
• 1) Convenience
• Open enrollment (No SAT, GRE,) Year-round enrollment.
• Flexible schedule of classes. Ex: Evening and online classes.
• Small class size.
• Institution in close proximity to students’ home and place of work.

13. STUDY FINDINGS
• 2) Lack of cultural capital
• Low expectation or not expectation toward institution prior enrolling.
• Very young when first applied to for-profit institution.
• No family or any other form of guidance toward college.
• Most students did not know the difference between for-profit and not-for-profit institutions.

14. STUDY FINDINGS
• 3) Credentialism
• Get a degree to get a job.
• Promise of fast certificate or degree.
• Promise of finding employment after completion of certificate or degree.

15. STUDY FINDINGS
• 4) Student satisfaction and recommendation of institution.
• 11 do not recommend
• 5 recommend but with reservations
• 4 Recommended
• Reasons for dissatisfaction
• Lack of training.
• Confidence (lack of knowledge) to enter the workplace.
• Feeling of wasting time and money.
• Accumulation of high debts.

16. MORE ON STUDY FINDINGS
• Students enroll at for-profit schools because they want to finish their program fast and
find a job.
• Many students complain about the lower quality of instruction they have received at
for-profit schools.
• Majority of participants state that for-profit schools are too expensive and the tuition
price and quality of instruction do not match.
• Some institutions had trouble with their accreditation and ended up closing down.
• More than the majority of the students interviewed do not recommend for-profit
schools to someone else.

17. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
• For-profit schools are nationwide and the sector is large and diverse.
• The proposed sample addressed the experience of only 20 students in Southern
California.
• Length of time between the graduation of some participants and the interview will
vary.
• It means that a student who have graduated six months ago may feel differently after a few
years.
• Participants were from different programs, which may had an impact on their rate
of satisfaction.

18. RECOMMENDATION FOR ACTION
• The for-profit sector needs to be held accountable for the lower quality of instruction
and training that make students feel unprepared to enter the workplace.
• Students need to know up front how much the certificate or degree they are in quest
will cost them, how much debt they will accumulate, and the quality of education they
will receive.
• Students need to be able to compare and contrast the benefits and costs of attending
a traditional institution versus for-profit schools.
• The government needs to held for-profit institutions accountable for apparent lack of
excellence in instruction and training, and the instances of inadequate business
practices.

19. CONCLUSION
• My research shows that demand for credential serve as a profound pressure on
students, dictating their enrollment at for-profit institutions.
• The for-profit sector attract student by offering year-round open enrollment,
flexible class schedule, easy access, and the promise of fast certificates and
degrees.
• While there are students’ content with their experience in the for-profit sector,
there are a significant number of student who are dissatisfied.
• Many students’ end up with high debt and dubious certificates and/or degrees.

20. WORKS CITED.
• Bennett, L. D., Lucchesi, R. A., Vedder, K. R. (2010). For-profit higher education: Growth,
• innovation, and regulation. Center for College Affordability and Productivity.
• Berger, Sarah (2015). Students face hard choices that for-profit college may lose an accreditor. The Chronicle of Higher
Education.
• Cottom, M. T. (2017). Lower Ed: The troubling rise of for-profit colleges in the new economy. The New Press, New York.
• Cottom, M. T. (2013). “Get off your couch! Call now! Start today!” Urgency, pain and motivation in for-profit college
admissions. Southern Sociological Society.
• Deming, David. , Goldin, Claudia. , & Katz, Lawrence (2013). For-profits colleges. Future of Children Internet. 23 (1): 137-63.
• Hagelskamp, C., Schleifer, D. , DiStasi, C. (2014). Profiting higher education: What students, alumni and employers think
about for-profit colleges. Public Agenda.
• Gross, P.K. Jacob , Cekic, Osman, Hossler, Don & Hilman, Nick (2009). What matters in student loan default: A
review of the research literature. Journal of Student Financial Aid, v39 n1 p19-29