“For-Profits Thrive, While Universities Decline”
An article with the above title was recently published in the Daily Egyptian, Southern Illinois University’s student newspaper. Authored by Madeleine Laroux, the article discusses a report provided to SIU’s Board of Trustees at a September meeting. According to Laroux, Paul Sarvela, Vice President for Academic Affairs, stated that the for-profits are growing at a substantial rate but don’t offer the level of service that the traditional universities offer. Instead, they’re enrolling the working adult and focusing on marketplace demands. Chancellor Sam Goldman added, “We are not appropriately compared to a for-profit. We provide a value-added education and some people want that, many people don’t. It depends on where you go.”
I think there are two telling comments in the above narrative. The first is Vice President Sarvela’s comment about for-profits enrolling working adults and focusing on marketplace demands. I wonder why SIU isn’t interested in that? Working adults may understand the value of a college education more so than a student just out of high school. Focusing on marketplace demands sounds important in most businesses. Imagine if American automakers had focused on the marketplace demands when the Japanese automakers entered the U.S. market.
Chancellor Goldman stated that SIU provides a “value-added education” which “some people want” and “many people don’t.” That sounds like a reverse way of noting that for-profits are focusing on the market demands and SIU isn’t.
The growth rate of for-profits is due to a number of factors including (1) their focus on working adults, a traditionally underserved population in higher education, (2) their focus on meeting the needs of the market, and (3) their tuition-driven economic models. Just as there are differences among non-profit institutions, there are differences in mission and economic model among for-profit institutions. Regardless of whether or not an institution pays taxes or receives subsidies from taxpayers, it’s becoming increasingly obvious that those institutions that pay attention to the higher education marketplace are thriving. Those who may have focused internally rather than externally may be looking at a steep learning curve.
Wally:
This is my doctoral alma mater and I know Paul Sarvela. I agree with your assessment of their comments. SIU is still stuck in the traditional brick and mortar track and has difficulty moving into the real marketplace. I don’t think they really want to, either. Part of the university is market driven and doing well (Technical programs, flight school, and allied heath among others.) The “regular” university is still caught in the bottoms in chairs mentality and the somewhat arrogant attitude that SIU is a “public ivy” which must defend itself again those upstart for profits. (In their minds it’s understood that for-profits have inferior programs.) Alas, the SIU-type universities are losing students because of their ignorance, for the most part, of the real world and the needs of the students/marketplace.
sir –
I wanted to say how much I appreciate going to a for-profit school. I’ve seen the levels of red tape traditional universities bury their students in. As a former military member and a grown adult with a full time job, I honestly don’t want (and can’t afford) to pay a school for the privilege of filling out reams of paperwork or struggling to get in contact with my student adviser. To my relief I found AMU, based on a profit model, to have stripped the sign-up process down to the necessary elements and the advisers to be quick to respond. Because the school is fairly young and based on a profit-driven model, it needs to remain competitive more than it needs to impress new students with pomp or tradition; the experience from a customer point of view is vastly improved.
I know the concern is that a university which exists as a for-profit organization could become tempted to provide degrees to students who do not actually meet the academic qualifications simply to keep the revenue stream coming in; but I’ve found the separation between money and education seems quite thorough in AMU. The classes are sufficiently challenging, the requirements quite firm, and from a student point of view it’s a relief to feel that the school I’m going to is respectable. It’s good to know I’d honestly be able to defend AMU’s practices in conversation.
I understand the place of the traditional university; the advances that universities come up with in science and the research they perform in other fields are an essential part of our society. Those places are for a specific sort of person, though; I’m a long way from looking to find the cure for cancer. Like the vast majority of college students these days I’m looking to improve my basic education, to become more competitive in the job market and – on a personal level – to prove to myself that I can get a degree. As my old boss would say, the right tool for the right job. Profit-driven universities are the right tool for one job, non-profit universities are the right tool for another. So – Thank you.
For-profit educational institutions play a big role in my county, so I pay attention to them.
After reading both the article and your post, I’ve formed a different question: how do for-profit institutions address the question of student development? It seems that this is what Goldman was implying when he referred to the programs of traditional schools as “value-added education.” He and his ilk must be careful of that characterization because the market suggests what’s value added, and it is suggesting that he might be wrong.