Giving Students a Voice: A Phenomenological Study of the Student Experience at For-Profit Colleges

A dissertation submitted

bySherry A. Phelan

toBenedictine University

in partial fulfillmentof the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Educationin

Higher Education and Organizational Change

This dissertation has been accepted for the facultyof Benedictine University

____________________________ Witt Salley, Ed.D. _________ __________Dissertation Committee Director Date

____________________________ Jamal Scott, Ph.D._________ ___________Dissertation Committee Chair Date

____________________________ Andree Swanson, Ed.D._____ ___________Dissertation Committee Reader Date

____________________________ Sunil Chand, Ph.D. _________ __________Program Director, Faculty Date

____________________________ Eileen Kolich, Ph.D. _________ __________ Faculty Date

____________________________ Ethel Ragland, Ed.D., M.N.,R.N. __________ Dean, College of Education and Health Services Date

Giving Students a Voice: A Phenomenological Study of the Student Experience at For-Profit Colleges

A dissertation submitted

bySherry A. Phelan

toBenedictine University

in partial fulfillmentof the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Educationin

Higher Education and Organizational Change

Acknowledgments

The completion of this research would not have been possible without the encouragement

and support of many people who were instrumental in enabling me to progress as both a

person and a scholar.

I would like to start by thanking God for blessing me with perseverance,

persistence, and strength. Thanks to the many saints who interceded on my behalf as I

worked on this project. Thanks be to God.

A heartfelt thank you to my dissertation chair, Dr. Jamal Scott, who graciously

picked up the ball halfway through and supported me to the completion of this study.

Many thanks to my dissertation director, Dr. Witt Salley, for not only encouraging and

motivating me from day one, but helping me to be a better scholarly writer. Thanks, too,

to Dr. Andree Swanson for her helpful guidance and encouragement over many long

months. A very special thank you to my work supervisor, Dr. Dale Moore, whose

positive support and daily encouragement were very much appreciated. Finally, a special

thank you to Dr. Sunil Chand and Dr. Eileen Kolich at Benedictine University.

Many thanks to the students, faculty, and staff of for-profit institutions who were

willing to participate in this study and share their stories.

Last, but most importantly, I am grateful for the love and support of my family

and friends. It has been a long process, but I could not have done this without you.

Much love to you all.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract………………………………………………..……………….................... vi

Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................. 3

Background……………...………………………………………………….3

Statement of Problem……………………………………….........................12

Purpose of the Study...………………………………………………………13

Research Questions……………….…………………………………………15

Theoretical Framework...……………………………………………………15

Significance of the Study...………………………………………………… 19

Summary……………...…………………………………………………….19

Chapter 2: Literature Review……………………………………………………….21

Brief History of the For-Profit Sector……………………………..………..21

Growth of For-Profit Education…………………….......................………..23

Characteristics of For-Profit Institutions………….……….………………..25

Profile of Students Enrolling in For-Profit Colleges………………………..29

Retention and Persistence at For-Profit Colleges…………………………...32

Choice of For-Profit College……………………...………………..……… 34

Student Experience and Satisfaction………………………….…………… 38

Customer Service as Student Service……………………………..……….. 43

Summary …………………………………………………………………...45

Chapter 3: Methodology...………………………………………………………… 47

Introduction……………….…………………………………………..…… 47

Research Design..……………………………………………..…………… 50

Participants and Sampling Technique………………………..……………..51

Data Collection…………………..………………………………..……….. 53

Data Analysis ……………………..…………………………..……………54

Credibility and Dependability………………….…………………………...55

vi

Ethical Principles…………………………………………………..……… 57

Limitations…………………………….………………..…………………. 58

Summary……………………………………………………….………..… 59

Chapter 4: Results and Analysis…………………………………………………… 61

Overview……………………………………………………………………61

Results……………………………………………………………………….63

Evaluation of Findings………………………………………………………92

Summary……………………………………………………………………111

Chapter 5: Implications, Recommendations, and Conclusions……………………..113

Overview……………………………………………………………………113

Implications…………………………………………………………………117

Limitations…………………………………………………………………. 133

Recommendations…………………………………………………………..135

Conclusions…………………………………………………………………138

References ………………………………………………………………….………140

Appendices………………………………………………………………………….157

Appendix A: Student Interview Guide…………………………………….. 157

Appendix B: Faculty and Staff Interview Guide………………………….. 159

Appendix C: Informed Consent Form………………………………………160

Appendix D: Student Intake Survey……………………………………….. 162 Appendix E: Invitation Letter/Email Text………………………………….164

vi

ABSTRACT

Enrollment at for-profit colleges continues to increase, yet persistence of students in the

career-based programs at these institutions is a significant issue. Much scholarly

attention has been given to the economics, deceptive practices, and customer service of

the for-profit sector, yet little qualitative research has been conducted on the student

experience and motivation to choose a for-profit school. The purpose of this qualitative

phenomenological study was to explore the lived experiences of students attending for-

profit institutions and the rationale for choosing these institutions. A purposeful sample

consisted of 11 current students and alumni of for-profit colleges. Data were collected

through telephone and Skype interviews and responses to a web-based questionnaire,

using a set of semi-structured open-ended questions developed by the researcher.

Interviews were transcribed and analyzed to identify key themes and to develop a

composite description of the phenomena. Five themes, or invariant elements, were

identified from the rich data collected: 1) student-customer service; 2) interaction with

staff, faculty, and peers; 3) cost of attending a for-profit college; 4) value of a for-profit

education as it relates to cost versus benefit; and 5) rationale for choosing a for-profit

college. From the data, a model of interaction to improve persistence was developed.

This study will add to the current literature on the for-profit sector and provide a new

perspective on the students who attend for-profit colleges. Data obtained from this study

will assist student affairs personnel and higher education administrators in improving

services and interactions between organizational constituents and students.

vi

Chapter One: Introduction

Background

In postsecondary education, many barriers prevent students from persisting and

successfully completing a program of study. Such factors as academic performance and

engagement, student attitudes and satisfaction, and family and social support play a role

in determining whether a student will remain in school or withdraw (Chung, 2012;

Kinser, 2006; Kirkham, 2011; Revelle, 1997; Taube & Taube, 1991; Tinto, 1988; Wilson,

2010). Colleges and universities have historically struggled with student retention and

persistence, and for-profit colleges, in particular, experience this challenge to a greater

degree (Deming, Goldin, & Katz, 2012, 2013; Hagelskamp, Schleifer, & DiStaci, 2014).

In the past decade, enrollments at for-profit colleges have steadily increased despite

higher tuition costs compared to those of public institutions (Deming et al., 2012, 2013).

Although persistence in a program is declining across most higher education sectors, data

sets from the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) indicate that retention

rates are often higher at for-profit institutions (Aud et al., 2011). Research on for-profit

institutions is sparse, but even more so are studies that describe student life within these

institutions. Despite declining enrollments in the sector over the past few years, students

are still choosing for-profit colleges as a source of their postsecondary education and are

persisting to graduation (Smith, 2015). The researcher seeks to add to the existing

literature on for-profit education by identifying the motivation of students enrolling at

3

for-profit colleges, developing a deeper understanding of their lived experience while

enrolled, and describing the reasons they chose to remain; or leave; these institutions.

Emerging themes resulting from this research may identify factors that will help inform

the retention and persistence practices of student services personnel at for-profit and

public institutions.

Student Persistence in U.S. Higher Education

Student persistence has a significant impact on all components of an institution

(Oseguera & Rhee, 2009). When students withdraw from college they fail to obtain the

knowledge and skills needed to succeed in the workforce. The economic impact reaches

beyond the classroom; revenues that institutions might receive from food, housing,

bookstore purchases, and other services are unavailable if students leave the school

(Raisman, 2013). Raisman (2013) noted that the loss of revenue has an adverse effect on

the ability of a college or university to support operations and enhance programs. For-

profit colleges depend on federal student aid to a great extent; federal grants and loans

received under Title IV accounted for about 74% of the revenues at these institutions

(Deming, Goldin, & Katz, 2012). An investigation of for-profit institutions by the U.S.

Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (2012) suggested that

many students who leave these colleges, either by graduating or withdrawing from a

program, frequently default on their federal student loans. The increasing student loan

default rate has serious implications for wider economic impact extending beyond the

realm of U.S. higher education (U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and

Pensions, 2012).

3

A large number of studies have been devoted to addressing student retention and

persistence in colleges and universities (Conklin, 1993; Stolar, 1991; Terenzini &

Pascarella, 1991; Tinto, 1988, 1997; Tinto & Goodsell, 1993; Villella & Hu, 1991), yet

recent research on student retention and persistence at for-profit institutions is

comparatively sparse (Mills, 1995; Taube & Taube, 1990, 1991). The dearth of studies

on the for-profit sector, with regard to retention and persistence, might be attributed to a

lack of perceived need for research, difficulty in obtaining student data, and

methodological limitations (Deming et al., 2012; Johnson, 1991, Kinser, 2006).

For-Profit Sector

For-profit education in the United States has been one of the fastest growing

sectors in higher education, enrolling the highest number of nontraditional students, and

providing a wide range of career-based educational programs that can be completed in a

relatively short amount of time (Deming et al., 2012; Kelly, 2001; Kinser, 2005; Schade,

2014). For-profit colleges are considerably different from traditional colleges and

universities in many ways. For example, these institutions emphasize training and

applied education over the more traditional liberal arts education found at public

institutions (Bennett, Lucchesi, and Vedder, 2010; Pelletier, 2010; Wilson, 2010).

Degrees in business, computer science, health professions, and cosmetology tend to be

the most awarded in this sector (NEA Higher Education Research Center, 2004).

Although the size and location of these institutions vary, most will share similar

characteristics: few student programs such as athletics and clubs, lower salaries for

faculty, programs that change quickly in response to employer demand, and schools that

4

operate out of small facilities located in areas convenient for students (NEA Higher

Education Research Center, 2004).

Despite their prominence and diversity in the higher education market, for-profit

institutions are not new, having roots in colonial times and existing for more than a

century in the form of “career colleges” - offering short-term courses in applied fields

that served local labor markets (Deming et al., 2013; Kinser, 2006a). The for-profit

sector in U.S. undergraduate education has experienced dramatic growth over the past

decade, often outpacing that seen in the private and public sectors. According to a

National Center for Education Statistics report, the number of associate’s degrees

conferred by for-profit postsecondary institutions between 1998 and 2009 grew by one

hundred twenty-five percent and the number of bachelor’s degrees by over four hundred

percent (Aud et al., 2011). Approximately three thousand for-profit institutions exist, of

which forty percent are owned by one of thirteen large, publicly traded corporations

(Wilson, 2010). Historically, for-profit institutions have been known for their diploma

and certificate programs in skilled trades. Wilson (2010) noted that ninety percent of

students are now enrolled in associate, bachelors, or professional degrees – educational

pathways that have been typically part of the traditional college and university landscape.

As the for-profit college sector expands, it is attracting students who might have

attended community colleges or four-year universities. Bailey, Badway, and Gumport

(2001) suggested that, in comparison to community colleges, for-profit institutions offer

classes at more convenient times and locations, are able to respond quickly to market

shifts and employer demand, and provide services that meets the diverse needs of the

students they serve. Additionally, students who have been turned away from

5

overcrowded, and sometimes budget-strapped, public institutions or who have had a

negative experience at a traditional college, are drawn to for-profit institutions, which

offer a feasible alternative (Wilson, 2010). Wilson (2010) asserted that this transition of

students from public to for-profit institutions has resulted in an increased student

population and legitimacy of the for-profit sector, and noted that the for-profit sector is

likely to be a beneficiary of President Obama’s $12 billion plan to produce five million

more two-year-college graduates over the next decade.

Role of the for-profit schools. A U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education,

Labor, and Pensions (2012) report on for-profit colleges noted that these institutions play

an important role in higher education because the current capacity of public colleges and

universities cannot meet the growing demand for higher education, which is largely due

to the lack of state funding. Significant growth has occurred in the population of

nontraditional students over the past several years in response to a declining economic

environment and a shortage of jobs (Pelletier, 2010). Pelletier (2010) defined

nontraditional students as those who are independent of their parents, have dependents

other than a spouse, have delayed attending college, and attend part-time or work full-

time while enrolled. Although the national economy has improved somewhat, fewer

nontraditional students are enrolling in career-based programs (Smith, 2015). Nocera

(2011) suggested that for-profit institutions have a niche market and are a necessary

element in the higher education realm. For-profit institutions are able to offer convenient

class times for students and online programs are commonplace. These institutions are

quick to change, and well-managed for-profit colleges are generally efficient and

innovative (Nocera, 2011).

6

A primary mission of for-profit postsecondary education is to provide adult

learners with job training and skills that will enable them to enter the workforce quickly

(Moore, 1995; Pautler, Roufa, & Thompson, 1998). The accelerated job skills training

programs at for-profit colleges appeal to a diversity of students, particularly adult

nontraditional and minority students, who may have limited education and work

experience and few skills to earn a living. For-profit colleges can be an invaluable

educational resource for these students who often have difficulty enrolling in programs of

study at traditional colleges or universities.

For-profit colleges are able to meet the needs of nontraditional students due to the

convenience of campuses in close proximity to students, providing online options and a

high degree of flexibility in scheduling, offering career-based programs, and employing

other innovative approaches. These innovations appeal to working adults and have been

successful for large populations of students who would not otherwise obtain a degree

(U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, 2012).

For-profit colleges attract a large population of low-income students who do not

have adequate financial resources to be able to pay the high tuition associated with

attending these institutions. Because of high tuition, these students must take on

significant student loan debt to attend school, and if students withdraw, they are left with

high monthly payments but without the knowledge and skills necessary to earn higher

wages to pay their student loan debt (U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education,

Labor, and Pensions, 2012).

Students attending for-profit colleges. A disproportionally large number of

women and minority students enroll at for-profit colleges and universities (Apling, 1993;

7

Deming et al., 2012, 2013; Iloh & Tierney, 2014; Kinser 2005; Kelly, 2001). A report by

the National Center for Education Statistics [NCES] (2011) indicated that for the 2007-

2008 academic year, almost fifty-four percent of the for-profit student population was

classified as a minority group, and approximately forty-six percent of students were white

(Aud et al., 2011). The NCES statistics (2011) found that female students are more likely

to enroll at for-profit colleges (sixty-nine percent) than males (thirty-one percent).

Nontraditional students who are older than twenty-five, work full-time, and attend school

part-time, accounted for almost sixty-three percent of the student body in for-profit

education (Aud et al., 2011).

Paying the high cost of for-profit education. Although for-profit students are a

minority in the postsecondary population, they received about thirty-two percent of all

federal grants and borrowed up to fifty-one percent in federal loans (Chung, 2012). For-

profit institutions received a disproportionate share of Title IV federal aid because they

have higher tuition and fees than public colleges and universities and tend to attract large

numbers of financially independent students or those who come from low-income

families (Deming et al., 2012). The higher cost of for-profit education makes those

programs riskier for students. As a comparison, for-profit colleges are much more

expensive than community colleges, forcing more for-profit students to borrow in higher

amounts. The cost of attending a for-profit college averaged $15,200 in the 2013-2014

academic year, compared with about $3,300 at two-year public colleges and $8,900 at

four-year public colleges. Additionally, although ninety-six percent of those attending a

for-profit college borrow to attend, just thirteen percent of community college students do

so (The College Board, 2014). Thus, the expense and risk incurred from an attempt at

8

college that did not end in a degree is greater at for-profit colleges. For-profit college

students tend to have higher default rates on student loans than do their peers at

traditional colleges and universities. Despite efforts to minimize student loan defaults,

rates have continued to rise in recent years among for-profit students. As a result, many

high profile for-profit colleges have been investigated and are facing regulatory changes

(Deming et al., 2012).

Retention and persistence of for-profit college students. Student retention and

persistence data from private for-profit institutions is limited; however, a report from the

U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (2012) indicated that

fifty-four percent of students who started at a for-profit college in 2008–2009 left without

a degree by mid-2010–a total of approximately 600,000 students. Retention data for

students seeking an associate’s degree was worse; sixty-three percent of these students

left a program before completing it (U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor,

and Pensions, 2012). Data from the National Center for Education Statistics (2015)

indicated that for the 2012-2013 academic year, the retention rates for two-year for-profit

colleges was sixty-eight percent. Interestingly, two-year public institutions, which

include community colleges, had a retention rate of fifty-nine percent (NCES, 2015).

The differences between the for-profit and public institutions in this data set suggest that

perhaps the increased scrutiny of the for-profit sector by state and federal policy makers

and accreditors might have resulted in an increase in retention efforts.

Choosing a for-profit college. Although for-profit education has seemingly

obvious drawbacks, students choose to attend these colleges for a variety of reasons.

Arcand (2015) noted that the choice of attending a for-profit is feasible in the minds of

9

the students who enroll at these institutions. For many students, for-profit colleges offer

a career-based education that provides them with the necessary skills to succeed in the

workplace, and a rapid pathway to a certificate or degree. Most for-profits offer flexible

schedules, comprehensive student services, and short degree-completion times to move

students to jobs more quickly (Arcand, 2015). Enrollments at for-profit colleges have

grown at a significant pace in recent years; however, little is known about what motivates

students to choose these institutions when less expensive alternatives are available

(Chung, 2012). Chung (2012) suggested that the choice of a for-profit college is heavily

influenced by a student’s socioeconomic background, school location, gender, and family

resources. Chung (2012) noted that a lack of data on the for-profit sector is a major

obstacle to identifying the key drivers influencing student choice of for-profit education.

Student–customer service. Customer service plays a significant role in the

student life cycle and is linked to retention and persistence at for-profit institutions. For-

profit colleges often treat students like customers (Deming et al., 2013; Dundon, 2015,

Kelly, 2001; Kinser, 2006b). Many for-profit institutions have customer service policies

in place, and employ a variety of staff members- financial counselors, enrollment

counselors, student success advisors, retention specialists, and concierge services-who

serve students in a timely, yet targeted manner (Noaman, 2011). Noaman also noted that

classes are frequently scheduled to accommodate students' needs rather than the

convenience of the faculty members.

Most for-profit institutions strive to present a professional image to potential

students. Admissions, advisement, financial aid, assessment, and registration are

streamlined and closely linked so students remain under administrative guidance for the

10

first several terms (Bailey et al., 2012). In addition to teaching, faculty members are

often heavily involved in student retention efforts. Career counseling and job placement

services are robust and take on more importance as students near the completion of a

program. Conversely, a report by the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education,

Labor, and Pensions (2012) suggested that many for-profit colleges fail to make the

necessary investments in student support services that have been shown to help students

succeed in school. For example, the report stated that,

in 2010, the for-profit colleges examined employed 35,202 recruiters compared

with 3,512 career services staff and 12,452 support services staff, more than two

and a half recruiters for each support services employee. (U.S. Senate Committee

on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, 2012, p. 7)

Therefore, at least at many for-profit colleges, recruitment of students was a significant

function in comparison to other student services. In recent years, legislation has

addressed the predatory recruitment practices within the for-profit sector, so the data may

not reflect the current environment in some cases. Raisman (2013) noted that colleges

could improve their retention rates by up to seventy-six percent if they focus more on

student needs and concepts of returns on investment.

Student experience during their time at a for-profit college. Plentiful data

exist on the demographics of students attending for-profit colleges, yet limited knowledge

of the student experience after enrolling at these institutions (Kinser, 2006). A Public

Agenda report by Hagelskamp, Schleifer, and DiStaci (2014) indicated that students and

graduates of for-profit institutions are generally satisfied with the academic programs

offered, the quality of the instructors and institutional staff, and the efficiency of student

11

services. Students attending for-profit colleges were generally worried about the high

cost of attending and the value of the credentials after they graduated and entered the

workforce (Hagelskamp et al., 2014). During licensure reviews at for-profit colleges,

Howard-Vital (2006) interviewed students and found that most were satisfied with their

institutions because of shorter program lengths, enhanced customer/student services, and

targeted curriculum relevant to a career field. Few studies specifically address the

reasons why students choose for-profit institutions or their lived experience at these

schools after enrollment. Descriptions of students’ lived experiences while enrolled at

for-profit colleges are lacking in the literature, and Kinser (2006) noted that limited

qualitative data exist on the current status of students in the for-profit sector.

Statement of Problem

Factors that influence college choice and the student experience after enrolling at

for-profit institutions have not been adequately studied. Kinser (2006) suggested that,

although much is known about the demographics of students attending for-profits

schools, less is understood about their reasons for enrolling and their experiences in these

institutions because so few comprehensive studies exist. Current research on traditional

college students increasingly uses qualitative methodology, and most of the studies on

for-profit students are generally quantitative (Kinser, 2006). This fact indicates the need

for additional qualitative research on students in the for-profit sector; the limited number

of qualitative research studies may be a barrier to fully understanding student motivation

and experience of attending for-profit institutions. More research is needed to close the

gap of knowledge about for-profit schools (Hawthorn, 1995).

12

The literature includes studies specifically focused on for-profit schools (Revelle,

1997; St. John et al., 1995; Simox, 1998; Taube & Taube, 1990, 1991; Webb, 1990);

however most of the research on the for-profits is focused on the economic impact of

attendance costs associated with retention factors and unethical practices. Very few

studies actually describe the student experience, or communicate the voice of students

who choose to attend for-profit colleges. The lack of information from a student

perspective may be due, in part, to the nature of the for-profit colleges. Except for a few

large corporations, such as University of Phoenix and Education Management

Corporation, most of these institutions are privately-held and access to student data is

difficult to obtain. For-profit institutions generally continue to have high enrollment

numbers (Aud et al., 2011), and many students are completing programs and moving into

the job market. Yet-to-be-identified factors would provide valuable information about

the personnel, programs, and services at for-profit institutions and the ways these factors

influence students’ motivation to enroll and complete a program of study. Developing a

better understanding of the experience of students at for-profit institutions would inform

administration and student services personnel of both public two-year colleges and for-

profit institutions needing to improve student retention and persistence.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to describe the lived experiences of students who

attend, or have attended, for-profit higher education institutions and to provide insight

into the motivation for choosing a for-profit college. The research utilized a qualitative

phenomenological approach to identify under-researched aspects of the student

experience at for-profit colleges and develop extensive descriptions of the reality of these

13

experiences (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2011). Five current students and six alumni of for-

profit colleges composed the sample population for this study, and a semi-structured

interview format was employed to obtain narratives of individual experiences that would

form a composite description of a phenomenon.

Researchers in the field of student persistence recommend the use of qualitative

research methods to understand how students are influenced by their postsecondary

experiences (Terenzini & Pascarella, 1991). Terenzini and Pascarella believed

naturalistic and ethnographic studies would enable researchers to identify indirect and

conditional effects of college not identifiable through quantitative methods. A qualitative

study would assist in developing a more comprehensive understanding of the factors that

motivate students to attend for-profit colleges and their experience once enrolled.

A phenomenological approach was used for this qualitative study.

Phenomenology is frequently used in studies that explore human experiences, structures

and perceptions of meaning (May, 2002). Moustakas (1994) described phenomenology

as the system by which a phenomenon-as-lived is explained and expressed.

Phenomenological researchers seek to identify, describe, and present a lived experience

in such a way that readers can “feel” the phenomenon themselves. Phenomenology was

selected as appropriate for this study because it enabled the researcher to explore both

experience and meaning as expressed by the participants in the most natural and organic

way, in real-life experiences at college. Phenomenology is a well-used approach in

human and social science disciplines, including sociology, education and psychology.

The goal was to gain new understanding about the personal and institutional factors that

contribute to the student experience at for-profit institutions. This information will

14

benefit student affairs professionals and higher education professionals at both for-profit

and traditional higher education institutions by providing insight into why students

choose for-profit institutions and how their experiences could be enhanced or improved.

Research Questions

The following research questions provide the foundation for this study:

1. What motivates students to attend a for-profit institution?

2. How do the interactions with staff, faculty, administration, and the institution

influence the student experience in for-profit education?

3. What are students’ perspectives of the role of customer (student) service functions at

the institution?

Theoretical Framework

Manski and Wise (1983) investigated college choice as a step in a series of

decisions made by students and post-secondary institutions. The study considered the

choice of a 4-year college, a 2-year college, a vocational-technical school, work, military

or homemaking. Following the modeling in Manski and Wise (1983), Behrman, Kletzer,

McPherson and Schapiro (1992) studied the decision to attend two-year or four-year

public institutions versus choosing not to attend college. Their primary focus was to

understand which family background variables directly affected the decision to attend

college. In another quantitative study, Chung (2012) examined the choice of attending a

for-profit college and found that students self-select into the sector, motivated to attend

due to the influence of family, socioeconomic level, and proximity to the college. Iloh

and Tierney (2013, 2014) found that potential students would choose a for-profit college

because of barriers to enrolling at community colleges or universities, availability of

15

career-based programs, and the conveniences of proximity, flexible classes, and

accelerated programs. Studies by Morris (1993), Revelle (1997), and Webb (1990)

examine the reasons why students select for-profit schools; however, there have not been

any concerted efforts to investigate the choice of for-profit college from a qualitative

perspective, and therefore research is limited.

The student experience at traditional public and private colleges and universities

has received much scholarly attention in the literature, but relatively few studies that

focus on student experience in the for-profit sector exist. Tinto’s (1975) seminal work on

retention and persistence provided a foundation from which multiple studies arose,

resulting in a significant presence of research on these topics in the literature. Tinto and

Pusser (2006) suggested that a students’ experience at college was a key factor in

persistence. Academic, social, and financial support, as well as the student’s

involvement, played a significant role in enhancing the college experience for most

students (Tinto & Pusser, 2006). Tinto (2016) asserted that students need to be able to

see themselves as a member of community of staff, faculty, and other students who value

their membership. As a student commits to becoming part of the community the

tendency to persist, despite challenges, is more likely. Therefore the sense of belonging

to the community, and the engagement with staff, faculty, and peers are essential to

motivating persistence. Terenzini and Pascarella (1994, 2001) have done multiple studies

on the importance of formal and informal interactions with students and the impact these

interactions have on engagement and overall college experience. The researchers found

that students who have high formal and informal interactions with faculty developed a

16

higher level of integration into an institution’s academic and social systems resulting in

increased satisfaction and persistence (Terenzini & Pascarella, 2001).

The theoretical framework for this study is based on Alexander Astin’s Theory of

Student Involvement (1984). Astin’s theory suggested that there were certain factors in

the college environment that affected student persistence, and positive factors were more

likely to increase student involvement in the undergraduate experience (Astin, 1984). As

students become more involved in academics and college life - spending time on campus,

interacting with faculty, and participating in student activities, organizations, and sports –

they enhance their learning and have a personal investment in persisting in their

education. In his studies, Astin (1984) examined several forms of involvement on

student experience:

Residing on campus increased a student’s chances of persisting. Involvement in

residential life and extracurricular activities, such as athletics and student

government, would positively influence a student’s satisfaction with their college

experience.

Being academically involved was strongly related to satisfaction with all aspects

of college life; student involvement in the classroom was a strong indicator of

cognitive development.

Frequent interaction with faculty was the strongest predictor of student

satisfaction with the college experience. Students who had high levels of

interaction with faculty were more likely to have a positive perception of the

college experience.

17

Large colleges and universities tend to have decreased levels of student involvement in

athletics, organizations, and interactions with faculty, than do smaller institutions (Astin,

1984). Astin (1984) found that community colleges provided minimal involvement for

students and faculty; most students were commuters and attended college on a part-time

basis; frequently precluding them from involvement in campus activities. Although for-

profit colleges were not included in Astin’s research, for-profit institutions are similar in

nature to the community colleges with regard to part-time commuting students and part-

time faculty. In the absence of research in the literature on for-profit student involvement

and experience, inferences could be made that the level of involvement of these students

and their satisfaction with the college experience would be somewhat similar to their

peers at community colleges.

Astin (1984) provided practical implications for student affairs personnel when

considering student involvement, experience, and persistence. For faculty and

administrators, the goal would be to focus on the students and their motivation and effort,

and spend less time on content and teaching techniques (Astin, 1984). Astin (1984)

recommended that student services personnel and other support staff take an active role

in increasing and achieving student involvement by encouraging peer interactions,

promoting participation in extracurricular activities and events, and assisting students

with finding appropriate support services.

The experiences of students at higher education institutions, and the level of

satisfaction, is directly related to persistence (Edens, 2012). Positive involvement in

academics, college life, and student-instructor interaction are all critical factors in

fostering satisfaction with the student experience. Most studies focused on traditional

18

colleges and universities, and not on the for-profit sector. Research on the experiences of

students at for-profit institutions would add to this research and provide information

about the factors that influence student involvement. This data would inform student

affairs personnel and higher education administrators at both public and for-profit

colleges, and have implications for improving processes that impact student persistence.

Significance of the Study

A qualitative study of for-profit institutions provides the opportunity to determine

if uninvestigated elements exist that encourage motivation to attend and influence the

student experience in such settings. Results from a qualitative study may enhance the

understanding of findings in other studies. Qualitative research can provide new

information and meaning not available through quantitative methods, thereby

encouraging further study.

An increased understanding of motivation and the student experience in for-profit

education can provide for-profit college owners with valuable information to be used in

admissions, student services (MacNeill, 1990), and program enhancement. Information

on student motivation can inform marketing and admissions procedures to encourage

enrollment and student experience data can be used to improve customer or student

service processes. In addition, directors and administrators can justify the costs of good

practices that improve the student experience and persistence, such as student orientation

programs, counseling, and advising (Smith & Bailey, 1993).

Summary

The for-profit sector has a long history in U.S. higher education and continues to

be an option for many college-bound students or those wishing to change careers. There

19

has been limited research, from a qualitative perspective, on the experiences of students

attending for-profit colleges as it relates to persistence, and the rationale for choosing

these institutions. The theoretical framework, based on research by Astin, Tinto, and

Pascarella and Terenzini, indicates that students are more likely to persist if they are

integrated into the college culture and have significant interactions with key institutional

stakeholders. Therefore the research questions sought to derive information about the

experience of for-profit students in their interactions with both the institution and its

personnel, as well as the motivation to choose a for-profit college. This study took a

phenomenological approach to communicate the voice of students who attend, or have

attended, for profit institutions, with the purpose of providing rich descriptions of the

experience to help inform the work of student affairs personnel and higher education

administrators.

20

Chapter 2: Review of the Literature

The focus of the literature review is to build a base for understanding for-profit

colleges and the students who attend them. A brief history of for-profit schools and their

role in postsecondary education form the first part of the literature review. The second

part provides an overview of research in the areas of student motivation to attend college.

The third part examines research on the student experience in the postsecondary setting.

Theoretical and conceptual frameworks are discussed. This section includes studies

conducted at community colleges, universities, and for-profit colleges.

Brief History of for-Profit Higher Education

The history of for-profit education is well-documented (Hawthorne, 1995;

Hittman, 1995; Honick, 1995; Kinser, 2005; Kowalski, 1996; Lee, 1996; Ruch, 2001),

and almost 25% of current for-profit institutions have been in existence for more than one

hundred years (Kinser, 2005). For-profit education would fully emerge in the United

States over 200 years ago, with the earliest business colleges appearing in the 1820s and

1830s. In the early years of for-profit education, the focus was to develop vocational

training programs in penmanship, bookkeeping, and arithmetic, or in learning new

technologies such as the typewriter and telegraph. For-profit business colleges became a

prominent feature in the higher education sector from the 1850s to the 1890s and

experienced exceptional growth. By 1890, there were around 250 for-profits with total

enrollment of 81,000 students, while 157,000 students were enrolled at traditional, non-

profit institutions (Kinser, 2006a).

21

Today’s for-profit schools are likely a direct descendent of the International

Correspondence Schools, a private business college founded in 1901, and still operating

as Thomson Education Direct (Kinser, 2006).

At the end of the nineteenth century, public colleges and universities began to

develop new models of practical and vocational education that undercut the market

(Kinser, 2006) for proprietary business colleges. The passage of the GI bill in 1944 made

for-profit institutions eligible to participate in educational efforts offered to veterans, and

later, the 1972 reauthorization of the Higher Education Act demonstrated the federal

government’s commitment to student choice in higher education (Kinser, 2006), making

for-profit colleges a part of the higher education system with traditional university and

colleges. Accreditation became available to for-profit institutions in the 1970s when

regional accrediting agencies began accepting these colleges and schools as members,

and as federal aid became more available by the end of the 1980s, for-profit institutions

were able to complete with lower-cost public colleges (Kinser, 2006). Allowing for-

profit colleges to receive federal funds would open the door to fraud and abuse by some

institutions, resulting in investigation and increased regulatory oversight of institutional

activities. The reauthorization of the Higher Education Act in 1992 established rules that

addressed specific abuses, such as high student loan default rates and high-pressure

recruitment practices, of the for-profit sector (Kinser, 2006).

Prior to 1990s, for-profit institutions were primarily small, privately-owned, non-

degree granting schools offering certificates and diplomas, mainly in business and health

care, later adding cosmetology, food services, and secretarial services. These institutions

22

enrolled those who traditional higher education tended to ignore – working class adults

with children desiring more practical skills training to acquire better jobs (Bentley, 2012).

In the current higher education market, for-profit colleges are most visible as

large publicly-owned corporations, such as University of Phoenix, which enroll about

half of all students in for-profit-degree granting institutions (Kinser, 2006).

Approximately eight hundred degree-granting institutions and thirty-five hundred non-

degree granting institutions are operating today which generate a combined $6.2 billion

in revenue through tuition from approximately 800,000 students (Aud et al., 2011).

Growth of For-Profit Education

The for-profit education sector is growing faster than the rest of higher education;

on average 8.4% enrollment growth per year since 1986; compared to 1.5% for all

institutions (Bennett, Lucchesi, & Vedder, 2010). Data from National Center for

Education Statistics (NCES) indicated that between 2000 and 2014, the number of for-

profit institutions nearly doubled: from 687 to 1,345 schools (Kena et al., 2015). Kelly

(2001) noted that there has been a 78% increase in the number of two-year institutions

and a 266% increase in the number of four-year institutions over the past decade. During

this time enrollments have, in some instances, surpassed those of traditional colleges and

universities. For-profit college enrollments grew by 59% and the two-year college

market grew from 19% to 29% (Kelly, 2001).

Thirty years ago fewer than 100,000 students attended for-profit colleges, but by

1986 enrollment tripled to over 300,000 students – accounting for 2% of all

postsecondary enrollees (Bentley, 2012). Kinser (2005) suggested that the student

market may not be saturated yet, either; there are sufficient numbers of high school

23

graduates and adults who have not attended college that can add to the growth of for-

profit education for the future.

Much of the growth in enrollment in the for-profit sector is due to expansion by

established institutions through mergers and acquisitions, new campuses, implementation

of distance learning programs, availability of federal student aid, and growing number of

students seeking skills beyond high school level (Cellini & Chaudhary, 2014; Kelly,

2001). Schade (2014) noted two specific factors that account for the growth of for-profit

institutions: 1) expansion of these colleges from small vocational technical schools to

fully accredited colleges and universities that offer traditional academic credentials; and

2) these institutions target underrepresented populations to increase the number of people

applying to receive a postsecondary education. To address competition for enrollments

from community colleges, many for-profit institutions upgraded their certificate and

diploma programs to associate degrees (Kelly, 2001). Many for-profit colleges place

great emphasis on attracting nontraditional students, veterans, and others who might not

enroll at traditional institutions. In addition to providing services and support for under-

prepared students, for-profit colleges also enroll a large number of working adults who

favor the convenient scheduling, multiple start dates, condensed programs, location,

services, and distance learning opportunities.

Despite the issues inherent with for-profit education, there will be student demand

for these institutions. Kinser (2005) suggested higher education itself is changing, and

that the for-profit sector adapts quickly in response. For example:

job training and workforce development are becoming the personal and public

goals of attending college,

24

fewer students are studying the liberal arts, and career-oriented disciplines enjoy

record growth,

part-time faculty are increasingly becoming the norm,

increased access to educational programs on a global scale. (p. 127)

Smith (2015) agreed that the demand for for-profit institutions still exists, and although

the number of students enrolling has decreased since 2010, when enrollment was at an

all-time high, a significant number of students are seeking out these institutions for the

career-based training they offer.

Characteristics of For-Profit Institutions

The growth of for-profit education is due to the demand for career-based

education, particularly in a weakened economy, and the diversity of institutions and

programs the sector provides. For-profit institutions range in size from small, private

technical and vocational schools, such as cosmetology or auto repair, that offer hands-on

career training, to large fully-accredited colleges and universities that offer a traditional

classroom experience (Bennett et al., 2010). Historically, for-profit colleges offered non-

degree and certificate programs as their primary academic programming; most now offer

associates and bachelors programs, and several have doctoral programs similar to

traditional colleges and universities (Bennett et al., 2010; Deming et al., 2012; Kelly,

2001; Kinser, 2005). An average for-profit institution enrolls about 600 students; in

comparison public institutions enroll about 7,000 students and private non-profit

institutions enroll 2000 and the for-profit sector is dominated by a handful of large

institutions with fifteen firms making up 60% of all students enrolled (Bennett et al.,

2010).

25

Revenues generated by postsecondary institutions are derived from tuition and

fees; investments; government grants, contracts, and appropriations; and other revenue

sources (Kena et al., 2015). In the academic year 2012-13, revenues at for-profit

institutions totaled $25 billion, with ninety-one percent of those monies coming from

student tuition and fees, and nine percent from government grants, contracts, and other

sources (Kena et al., 2015). Community colleges, by comparison, derive seventeen

percent of revenues from tuition and fees, seventy-one percent from government grants

and appropriations, and eleven percent from other sources (Kena et al., 2015).

For-profit institutions tend to spend more on student services, institutional

support, and academic support than their public peers. These are broad categories that

include expenses related to salaries and wages, student services, operation and

maintenance, independent operations, institutional support, and academic support. For

the 2012-13 academic year, for-profit institutions spent sixty-five percent of their revenue

on service and support expenses, and twenty-five percent on instruction; research and

public service expenses were negligible (Kena et al., 2015). Data from NCES (2015)

indicated that public institutions spent twenty percent on services and support, twenty-

seven percent on instruction, and thirteen percent on research and public service. It

should be noted that two-year colleges tend to be limited to focused instructional

missions that provide career-oriented programs at the sub-baccalaureate level, and in

preparing students for transfer to four-year institutions (Kena et al., 2015).

Cost and student debt. The total cost of attending a postsecondary institution is

the sum of the tuition and fees, books and supplies, and other expenses (Kena et al.,

2015). Institutions in the for-profit sector tend to be costlier than colleges and

26

universities in other sectors. For example, the cost of attendance at two-year for-profits

averaged $27,870 per year; in comparison, students attending community colleges paid

an average of $16,090 per year (Kena et al., 2015). For profit-colleges represent a small

percentage of the higher education sector as a whole, enroll just 11 percent of students

nationally, and confer 21% of associate’s degrees, yet account for 44 percent of federal

student loan defaults (Cellini & Chaudhary, 2014; Foroohar, 2016). In fact, the amount

of debt accrued by for-profit college students grew from $39 billion in 2000 to $229

billion in 2014 (Looney & Yannelis, 2015).

For-profit institutions are structured as profit-maximizing firms whose success

depends on providing a valuable service to the student/customer. For-profit colleges can

only be profitable if they are able to provide a service that is valuable to the student. As a

result, these colleges are agile and can react quickly to changes in labor market demand;

offering just-in-time educational products (Gilpin, Saunders, & Stoddard, 2015). Bennett

et al. (2010) noted that for-profit colleges must charge high tuition and fees because they

cannot rely on federal funding as a primary revenue source; therefore, for-profit

institutions tend to focus on degree programs with measurable skill outcomes that satisfy

the cost-benefit test for students. In an effort to maximize profits, many large for-profit

have engaged in aggressive, manipulative, and deceptive tactics to enroll as many

students as possible, often without regard for their potential for success or ability to

afford tuition (National Association for College Admission Counseling [NACAC], 2016;

U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, 2012). Degrees in

business, computer and other technical fields, medical assisting, cosmetology, art,

criminal justice, travel and tourism, personal training, and culinary arts are among the

27

most common at the for-profit colleges. Providing degree programs in areas such as

these are generally profitable. These programs often require few capital resources, and

can be effectively taught by industry practitioners instead of higher paid research PhDs

(Bennett et al., 2010).

Most for-profit institutions describe faculty in traditional terms and follow an

academic calendar (quarter, trimester, or semester). Adjunct faculty tend to be the

highest population of instructors, which is similar to what might be expected at a

community college. An absence of shared governance, academic freedom, and tenure is

common at for-profit institutions (Tierney, 2011). Kinser (2005) noted that more than

half of for-profit colleges offer students the opportunity to take accelerated programs or

study in shortened terms. Additionally, few of these institutions have college-sponsored

athletics, student clubs, or residential facilities to enhance the social aspects and culture

of the institution.

What about the quality of a for-profit education? Most of the research in the

literature was based on the economic impact of a for-profit education and gainful

employment concerns (e.g., Deming et al., 2012, 2013; Denice, 2015; Dundon, 2015,

Schade, 2014). Cellini and Chaudhary (2014) assessed the quality of for-profit education

by estimating the labor market returns to associate degree programs at for-profit colleges

and found that for-profit students experienced a ten percent increase in weekly earnings,

or a four percent return per year of education, when compared with high school

graduates. However, the researchers discovered that the for-profit returns were lower

than returns to public community colleges (Cellini & Chaudhary, 2014). Few studies in

the literature that address the quality of a for-profit education from a student perspective.

28

In one study, Hagelskamp et al. (2014) found that student perception of quality was based

on guidance received, knowledgeable instructors, small class sizes, peer-to-peer

interactions, hands-on help from staff and faculty, and availability of services, such as

tutoring and counseling. The dearth of information lends itself to future studies to assess

the impact of a for-profit college education to overall student satisfaction and gainful

employment.

Profile of Students Enrolling in For-Profit Colleges

What are the characteristics of students attending for-profit colleges? Deming,

Goldin, and Katz (2012) reported that students at for-profit colleges were mostly

nontraditional (twenty-five years or older), African American, Hispanic, female, and

those classified as low income. Only 75% of first-time students enrolled in for-profit

colleges had a high school diploma, compared with 85% of students in community

colleges, and most of the remaining students had a General Educational Development

(GED) diploma (Deming et al., 2013). There were economic differences as well;

dependent students tended to have about half as much family income as community

college students and students were two and half times more likely than community

college students to be single parents – twenty-nice percent versus twelve percent

(Deming et al., 2013). Appling (1993) noted that when comparing the student population

at for-profit colleges with their peers at other postsecondary institutions, for-profit

colleges tend to enroll a higher percentage of women, minority group members,

nontraditional, and low-income students.

For the purposes of this study, nontraditional will be defined as those students

who meet one of these characteristics (Pelletier, 2010): Attends college part-time, works

29

full-time, 25 years of age or older, is financially independent for financial aid purposes,

has dependents other than a spouse, does not have a high school diploma, or is a single

parent. In 2013, 53% of the full-time students attending two-year for-profit institutions

were considered nontraditional students, and 64% of the student body were part-time

students (Kena et al., 2015). In comparison community colleges enrolled 27% full-time

and 45% part-time nontraditional students (Kena et al., 2015).

Undergraduate enrollment data by race/ethnicity indicated differences as well;

two-year for-profit colleges tend to have a larger minority population than their public

college peers. Data for the 2013 academic year indicated that sixty percent of the for-

profit college student body identified as a minority group (non-white), while two-year

public colleges had a forty-six percent minority population (Kena et al., 2015). Black

and Hispanic students are the main minority groups at for-profit colleges, yet scarce data

exists in the literature to explain the reasons this is the case. Schade (2014) argued that

for-profit colleges target, rather than serve, vulnerable populations such as low-income

and minority students.

Marketing efforts focus on recruiting vulnerable students because they qualify for

federal grants and loans; in many cases, money used to fund recruitment efforts

frequently exceeded the amount allocated to teaching and instructional resources

(Schade, 2014). Kirkham (2011) concurred, suggesting that minority and low-income

students are generally over-represented at for-profit institutions because they have been

strategically targeted by marketing campaigns and recruitment efforts. Advertisements

on television and in print often feature black or Hispanic students, featuring a testimonial

or image of a minority student achieving a degree or employment (Kirkham, 2011).

30

Kirkham (2011) suggested that the rationale for targeting minority groups in recruitment

efforts is that low-income students are eligible for federal student aid, including Pell

Grants, from which institutional revenue is largely derived. The for-profit industry has

argued that for-profit institutions accommodate a need, and are the schools of choice, for

minority and low-income students who are trying to manage jobs and families. Morial

(2011) asserted that for-profit institutions give minority, low-income, and nontraditional

students an opportunity they would not have otherwise.

For-profit colleges generally have a higher percentage of female students. A

National Center for Educational Statistics report indicated that almost seventy percent of

the for-profit student population was female (Aud, 2011). Appling (1993) believed that

this is because many of these institutions specialize in training for occupations, such as

medical assisting and cosmetology, careers dominated by women and accounting for

about sixty-three percent of enrollments. Part of the predominance of women in the for-

profit student population might be attributed to the fact that a higher percentage of single

parents attend these colleges. Female students attending for-profit colleges are often

single mothers who need flexible scheduling and the convenience and scope of the

programs. Appling (1993) noted that nearly two-thirds of female for-profit college

students with dependent children said that they had never married or were separated.

Many of these students find that the nontraditional structure of for-profit education better

suits their family needs.

For-profit college students are more likely to come from low- to lower-middle

income families. National Center for Education Statistics data showed that seventy-seven

percent of dependent students, or those relying on parents’ income, were low-income,

31

and approximately seventy percent of independent students were low- to lower-middle

income (Aud et al., 2011). The preponderance of low-income students enrolling in for-

profit colleges has not been well-researched and information is scarce in the literature.

However, it is believed that low-income and minority groups are choosing these

institutions as a result of targeted marketing strategies and advertising. Kinser (2006a)

noted that although still sizable, for-profit colleges proportionally serve fewer minority,

low income, younger, and part-time students than in earlier eras due to their recent shift

to bachelor’s level programs and differing enrollment rates by degree level.

Retention and Persistence at For-Profit Colleges

For-profit colleges tend to enroll students who are first-generation, low-income,

minority, and nontraditional. When compared with students coming from higher income

families, these students, particularly those with low-incomes, are more likely to withdraw

from college before completing a degree at public institutions (Tinto, 2004). Tinto

(2004) suggested several reasons for this: 1) these students were underprepared for

college; 2) there were social and cultural factors that created barriers to completion; and

3) students did not have adequate resources to pay for a college education. Measuring

persistence at for-profit institutions is difficult because a large portion of students

attending for-profit colleges are not first-time, full-time students; therefore, the

Department of Education does not track their outcomes (U.S. Senate Committee on

Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, 2012).

Several studies have focused on predicting postsecondary student persistence in

colleges and universities. Cheng (1992) looked at education and socioeconomic status of

32

the students’ parents to predict completion. Financial aid and tuition fees were also

examined as factors affecting persistence (St. John, Paulsen & Mbaduagha, 1995).

Data from the National Center for Education Statistics indicated that, for the

2012-2013 academic year, the retention rate at two-year for-profit colleges was sixty-

eight percent; in comparison, two-year public institutions had a retention rate of fifty-nine

percent (Kena et al., 2015). These data reflected an increase in retention rates at for-

profit institutions from previous years. Fain (2014) suggested that the increased scrutiny

and the attention from legislators, accreditors, and other stakeholders to improve student

retention might have played a role in the increased retention rates at for-profit colleges

and universities.

The graduation rate, as an indicator of persistence, applies only to four-year

institutions for students receiving bachelor’s degrees in a National Center for Education

Statistics report (Kena et al., 2015). However, the differences in graduation rates

between sectors is stark; overall public institutions had a fifty-eight percent graduation

rate, compared with a thirty-two percent rate at for-profit schools (Kena et al., 2015).

Overall, persistence rates at higher education institutions have been in decline in the past

several years. It is believed that a recovering economy after the last recession is

responsible, in part, for the decrease in college student persistence; many students are

leaving college for jobs and not returning (Fain, 2014). Notwithstanding, some believe

there are other factors that influence persistence at for-profit colleges. For one, for-profit

colleges spend a vast amount of their revenue on non-education related expenses, such as

marketing and recruiting, which has an impact on the quality and diversity of courses and

programs offered. The large investment of resources to recruit new students does not

33

translate to the same level of student service once the student is enrolled (U.S. Senate

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, 2012). However, some reports

suggested that persistence is related to a high level of student-customer services at for-

profit colleges (Kelly, 2001; Kinser, 2006b), which is due, in large part, to increased

satisfaction (Edens, 2012) from staff-student and faculty-student interactions (Astin,

1984; Kinser, 2006b; Terenzini & Pascarella, 1991, 1994).

Choice of For-Profit College

With a wide variety of educational institutions in the higher education market,

why do students choose for-profit colleges? Kinser (2006a) speculated that students who

enroll in for-profit institutions area interested in earning a credential quickly, and that the

shorter certificates and associate’s degrees better meet their needs. Adelman (2000)

suggested that in the current technology- and information-driven economy, short-term

attendance and non-degree credentials are perceived as more beneficial to students now

than in the past. A report by Kelly (2001) proposed that students attend for-profit

institutions because they were dissatisfied with traditional colleges and universities, for-

profit colleges had better student services, and the programs offered more directly applied

to their career goals. The guiding factors in the choice of a for-profit college are ease of

receiving support services, access to accelerated programs, and the fulfillment of personal

and academic needs (Howard-Vital, 2006). For many students, choosing a for-profit

college enables them to obtain the skills that can be immediately put into practice in the

labor market upon graduation (Deming et al., 2013).

In their Public Agenda research study, Hagelskamp, Schleifer, and DiStaci (2014)

found that most for-profit undergraduate students hadn’t considered more than one

34

college before they decided where to enroll, and were generally unaware of the difference

between a for-profit and public college. What attracted the attention of potential students

was the active recruiting and advertising from billboards, television commercials, and

other advertisements (Hagelskamp et al., 2014). A study by Chung (2012) found that

most students self-selected into for-profit colleges. Chung (2012) also found that

students choosing a for-profit education possessed lower non-cognitive skills and were

influenced by lower parental involvement in their schooling and lower family income and

resources. Kantrowitz (2009) surveyed for-profit college students and found that most

chose their institution based on location, job prospects after graduation, and perceived

quality of major. Lower ratings were given to athletics and extracurricular activities

(Kantrowitz, 2009).

The reasons why potential students choose for-profit colleges has not been

addressed extensively in the literature, particularly from a qualitative perspective. Most

of the studies in the literature address college choice as it applies to students attending

traditional colleges and universities. Chapman (1986) and Cabrera and LaNasa (2000)

suggested that college choice was dependent upon academic quality, cost, student life,

future career options, ability to finance an education, and campus life. Manski and Wise

(1983) noted that students weigh the economic and social benefits of attending college

and compare them with competing alternatives, and St. John and Starkey (1995)

concluded that low-income students were sensitive to financial considerations when

deciding on a college at which to enroll. Nontraditional students, in any higher education

sector, prefer colleges that are safe, located close to home, have flexible classes and

hours, and are affordable (Bers & Smith, 1987; Tumblin, 2002).

35

In her quantitative study, Chung (2012) found that the choice of a for-profit

college was heavily influenced by a student’s socioeconomic background, school

location, gender, and family resources, and Arcand (2015) noted that most for-profits

offer flexible schedules, comprehensive student services, and short degree completion

times to move students to jobs more quickly. Iloh and Tierney (2013) focused on the

propensity of low-income students of color to choose for-profit colleges despite the

potential for accumulating student loan debt and an uncertain career path. Oseguera,

Kimball, and Hwang (2011) suggested that for-profit students are more inclined to value

education to find a job, and Holland (2013) posited that for-profit students generally use a

haphazard approach to college selection; with little exposure to college campuses, and

minimal preferences derived from a search process, for-profit students were significantly

influenced by marketing and recruiting efforts of a college.

Deming et al. (2013) provided several reasons students choose for-profit colleges:

1) for-profit institutions generally specialize in short programs that are narrowly focused

and prepare students for specific occupations and job placement. These programs are

closely aligned with the industry and are easily adjusted to meet the changing needs of

employers; 2) students often choose for-profit institutions because of overcrowding at

community colleges or the inability of community colleges to meet their needs; 3)

advertising and recruitment efforts at for-profit institutions influence potential students,

and 4) for-profit colleges take a career-focused approach and offer a wide range of

occupational training.

Bailey, Badway, and Gumport (2001) described several reasons why students

would choose for-profit colleges over public institutions:

36

1. Marketing: For-profit institutions projected a professional and technologically

sophisticated image to potential students.

2. Services offered: Students were provided a streamlined and efficient process for

enrollment; admissions, financial aid, registration, and advising services were

integrated; everything was packaged, and students worked with a representative to

complete forms, schedule classes, and complete registration. Career counseling and

job placement services provided students with extensive support.

3. Flexibility and scheduling: There were generally frequent entry and exit options that

would allow students to blend study with work and family responsibilities. Classes

were scheduled throughout the day and in the evenings, and faculty were available

during evenings and weekends.

4. Accelerated programs: Programs were generally accelerated and shorter than public

colleges and universities, and allowed students to complete their education and enter

the workforce more quickly.

5. Transfer of credits: Students could usually transfer credits from other institutions,

although students might have difficulty with transferring credits from a for-profit to a

traditional college or university.

The choice of a for-profit college ultimately depends on the priorities of the adults

who are interested in enrolling at these institutions. Adults interested in for-profit schools

tended to be looking for accelerated programs that would enable them to graduate quickly

and enter the workforce, availability of online classes, convenient location, and

recommendation of the school from alumni (Hagelskamp et al., 2014). These priorities

contrast with students choosing public colleges and universities. Hagelskamp et al.

37

(2014) found that students choosing to attend a public colleges were interested in

instructors who cared and were interested in teaching, affordable tuition, a specific

program of study, and the reputation of the school.

The hands-on services offered by for-profit institutions were a desirable feature

among prospective adult students, and played a significant role in the choice of college.

In particular, Hagelskamp et al. (2014) noted, students were drawn to schools which

offered help from career counselors, tutors, and financial aid advisors. This data parallels

what is known about nontraditional students (Pelletier, 2010): Those seeking a career

change would be looking for a school that could help them find a job in a chosen field,

and many students who have been out of school for some time would desire readily

available tutors and hands-on assistance with financial aid applications. Additionally,

students would likely choose a for-profit college over a public institution because there

would be more opportunities for externships and work experiences (Hagelskamp et al.,

2014).

Student Experience and Satisfaction

For-profit institutions appeal to nontraditional students, those seeking a change in

careers, older students who are employed while in school or taking care of family

members. Some institutions offer child care to deter students from withdrawing and to

minimize the attrition rate which would impact accreditation. Generous transfer credits

are given and many low-income nontraditional students who depend on financial aid get

the help they need in filling out the forms (Deming et al., 2012). Students receive

guidance and direction the moment they walk in the door. For-profit colleges take a more

active role in in guiding students through the process of enrollment and completion, and

38

they more aggressively assisted with job search when compared with community colleges

(Deming et al., 2013). As a whole, the for-profit sector does a better job, when compared

with its community college neighbors, of accommodating the busy schedules of its

students by offering flexible times such as nights and weekends. Most for-profit colleges

have robust distance learning programs as well.

Substantial resources are devoted to sales and marketing to recruit students, and

advertising is a big budget item for most for-profit colleges. Physical locations are

usually leased to reduce large amounts of overhead. Admissions and financial aid offices

are highly visible, large, and comfortable, and administration and student services

personnel are friendly and welcoming (Howard-Vital, 2006). The core curricula is

highly-structured to provide identical programs at each campus location and offered at

convenient times to ensure timely completion of a program (Deming et al., 2012).

Faculty have an acute awareness that there is a need to proactively retain students and

they will often go to extreme measures to contact students who do not attend class

(Howard-Vital, 2006).

Howard-Vital (2006) noted that most for-profit institutions seem business-like to

students, rather than collegiate. Advertising shows well-dressed professionals and the

visual promotes a college designed for working adults who need just-in-time career

education (Howard-Vital, 2006). Corporate buildings give students the impression of

reaching a goal to enter into, and advance, in the white-collar world (Howard-Vital,

2006). Students are often encouraged to dress professionally to promote a professional

atmosphere in the classroom and on campus.

39

Kinser (2005) characterized student affairs at for-profit colleges as 1) a core

institutional function directed toward serving and supporting students as customers; 2)

dedicated to helping students enroll, stay enrolled, and graduate; 3) designed with the

nontraditional student in mind, with an awareness of the personal and academic issues

these students face; 4) oriented toward creating an out-of-class environment that is

conducive to learning; and 5) convenient for students – services and support is easily

accessed.

A strong relationship exists between student satisfaction and the intent to persist;

effectiveness of institutional services and students’ experience are strong predictors of

student satisfaction (Edens, 2012). Diel-Amen and Rosenbaum (2003) interviewed

students at for-profit colleges in the Midwest and found that students generally have a

better experience with student services than those at community colleges and are able to

complete their degree in a timely manner. Howard-Vital (2006) interviewed students at

for-profit colleges during accreditation reviews and found that most students’ satisfaction

with for-profit institutions comes from how they perceive they are treated, how they

believe they would be treated at other institutions, and how flexible they perceive the

institution to be in helping to meet their educational and career goals. Howard-Vital

found that students preferred for-profit colleges, and were more satisfied with them,

because they felt the institution cared about them as a person, didn’t make them take

classes they didn’t need, everything was taken care of by the institution, and there wasn’t

a lot of extracurricular requirements (2006). Smith (2015) quoted Mark Brenner of the

University of Phoenix about the importance of student experience:

40

We want the student experience to be the most important thing…it’s in the

students best interest to make sure they’re here and they’re a good fit. We’re

helping them graduate from college and this will improve their outcomes. (para.

38)

Research by Hagelskamp et al. (2014) found that 91% of students felt that a for-

profit institution gave them effective guidance to stay on track in their programs, 87%

believed they had instructors who cared about their students and knew how to teach, and

85% indicated satisfaction with small class sizes. Conversely, for-profit institutions

received lower marks from students for providing them with valuable externships and

work experience, and giving them exceptional assistance in finding good jobs in their

fields (Hagelskamp et al., 2014). Despite the cost of a for-profit education, Bailey et al.,

(2001) found that students were generally satisfied with the quality of their instructors,

advisors, and tutors, as well as the structure and efficiency of their programs.

For-profit colleges commonly have academic or career-specific student groups to

enhance the campus life experience, and to drive retention. Some of these institutions

have traditional student life activities, such as student clubs, athletics, and residential

facilities (Bailey et al., 2003; Kelly, 2001; Kinser, 2005b). Yet the focus of student

services at most for-profit colleges is to provide academic and career support for students,

rather than to engage them in social activities.

The financial burden of their education and the estimated value of their

credentials in the workforce is a concern among students at for-profit colleges (e.g.,

Deming et al, 2012, 2013; Kinser, 2005a). For-profit colleges promote their degree

programs as a means to prepare students to enter the job market and earn the salaries they

41

want, yet at many of these colleges the graduation rate is low, credits do not generally

transfer, and students do not usually make as much money as students who graduate from

traditional colleges (Schade, 2014). Hagelskamp et al. (2014) discovered in their study

that almost sixty-five percent of the for-profit students considered their institutions

expensive, seventy percent took out loans to pay for college, and about fifty percent

worried about taking on too much debt. Similarly, there were concerns about the value of

their degree in the labor market. About eighty percent of current students were optimistic

that completing their degree would improve their chances of finding a job and earning

good incomes (Hagelskamp et al., 2014). The responses from alumni of for-profit

colleges were more telling of the reality of a for-profit credential; about thirty-seven

percent felt that their degree was worth it, and thirty-two percent believed it was not

(Hagelskamp et al., 2014). A more discouraging fact was that, for students graduating

before 2012, seventy percent did not believe their degree was worthwhile (Hagelskamp et

al. (2014). Hagelskamp et al. (2014) found that many of the for-profit graduates blamed

their schools for not preparing them adequately for the job market, and that these schools

did a poor job of teaching them knowledge and skills that are needed in the workplace.

As private institutions, for-profit colleges do not have a high level of public

transparency, and the information that can be obtained about the student experience is

limited. Likewise, there is a dearth of information in the literature on students’

experiences once enrolled in for-profit colleges. Kinser (2006a) noted that small-scale

surveys of students in for-profit education is minimal, and qualitative studies that report

for-profit students’ perspectives are rare. Hagelskamp et al. (2014) suggested that more

research was needed to better understand for-profit students’ experiences at their

42

institutions. Given the limited research on this topic, the experiences and expectations of

students in for-profit colleges are not well understood (Kinser, 2006a).

Customer Service as Student Service

Although the information about the student experience in for-profit institutions is

limited, the customer service aspect of this sector has been addressed in the literature

(Arcand, 2015; Bailey et al., 2003; Bennett et al., 2010; Howard-Vital, 2006; Kelly,

2001). For-profit colleges are businesses focused on recruiting consumers who can

receive financial aid; these institutions are motivated by profit, not educational outcomes

(Dundon, 2015; Schade, 2014). Deming et al. (2012) noted that as a business, for-profit

colleges emphasize the special client base (students) and replicate successful programs

using web technology and the standardization of curriculum.

Kinser (2006b) noted that students are identified as customers at for-profit

institutions, and all institutional personnel are responsible for ensuring each student

receives a high level of service, such as advising and counseling. Faculty members are

not only instructors, but assist in identifying and addressing work and family conflicts,

time management, and financial aid issues (Kinser, 2006b). Administrators at for-profit

college usually have an open-door policy and encourage prompt responses to student

inquiries. College policies are aligned to promote retention and foster interactions

between staff, faculty, and students. The facilities at for-profit colleges are generally

well-maintained and are often compared to an office environment, rather than what might

be considered an academic setting at a traditional college or university.

Matriculation at for-profit colleges. For-profit colleges are tuition-driven

institutions, and enrolled students represent a revenue source. Therefore, a primary focus

43

of student services as for-profit colleges is matriculation and helping students remain

enrolled to graduation. Kinser (2006b) noted that student withdrawals are considered

institutional failures, and graduates are not considered successful until they are employed.

As enrollment is considered the main revenue-generating function at for-profit colleges,

staff in admissions departments often have weekly quotas to meet. In the researcher’s

experience, underperforming admissions staff would be terminated or reassigned to

another position at the institution. In a study on student affairs functions at for-profit

colleges, Kinser (2006b) observed that staff in most admissions departments developed a

formal plan of study for students enrolling in a program; this plan was a written contract

between the student and the institution. The career focus of the for-profit sector begins

early in the student life cycle as well, with most institutions providing students with

information about career potential for degrees and certificates, and communicating

placement rates for previous graduates.

Addressing the needs of a diverse student population. For-profit colleges

enroll a diverse population of students, including large numbers of nontraditional

students, and have a strong awareness and understanding of their student body. This

knowledge translates into aligning programs and services to the specific needs of these

students to increase recruitment efforts and improve retention. For example, for-profit

colleges will employ strategies such as developing curriculum around adult learning

theories, addressing financial aid issues for low-income students during the application

process, and providing both positive role models for students of color and culturally

sensitive campus environments (Kinser, 2006b). Students attending for-profit colleges do

not receive the same opportunities for social activities as do students at non-profit

44

institutions; most for-profit colleges provide activities that support the career

development of the student, rather than activities for social interaction and personal

growth and enrichment.

Convenience and accessibility of services. Most for-profit colleges will have a

centralized location for all services – student support services, faculty offices, and career

services – which are often offered not only during regular business hours, but in the

evenings and on weekends as well. Online services such as application for enrollment,

advising, registration, and financial aid are prevalent at for-profit colleges. Some

colleges have staff available 24 hours a day to assist students on the website, to answer

email inquiries, and to participate on live chat (Kinser, 2006b). For-profit colleges ensure

that students have access to information and services via phone calls, email messages,

social media, and face-to-face contact with staff members. Faculty at some institutions

are trained to avoid referring students to the financial aid or registrar’s office, but to assist

the students themselves (Kinser, 2006b). Students with attendance issues will frequently

receive a phone call from a staff or faculty member, who will offer assistance as needed.

Summary

For-profit institutions have a long history in U.S. higher education, serving as a

source of training to improve employability in the labor market. In the past decade,

enrollments in the for-profit sector have grown significantly in comparison to public

institutions. However, regulations and increased scrutiny of the sector and its practices

have dampened growth in the past couple of years. According to Smith (2015), for-profit

student enrollment was down 4.9 percent compared to a year ago, reflecting a possible

change in focus for for-profit colleges in the future. Nevertheless, the demand for for-

45

profit colleges in the higher education market exists, particularly among students who

wish to pursue career-based training. The literature indicated that for-profit colleges

enroll a diverse population who are underrepresented: minority, female, nontraditional,

and low-income students. These students are generally seeking a fast-track pathway to a

high-paying career and don’t necessarily desire, or fit into, the traditional college and

university model. For-profit colleges are generally more expensive to attend than public

institutions and students enrolling in these schools rely on federal grants and loans to pay

for their education. However, in doing so, they assume a large debt load that frequently

results in default on student loans. Despite obvious drawbacks to enrolling at a for-profit

college, students still choose to attend these institutions and will persist to complete a

certificate or degree. What is not well-researched in the literature is the motivation to

enroll in these colleges, and the lived experience of the students as they persist in a

program of study and graduate. This qualitative study explored the motivation to attend a

for-profit school, and the experiences of for-profit students to develop a better

understanding of the factors that drive persistence.

46

Chapter 3: Methodology

Introduction

The literature review presented in Chapter 2 detailed the characteristics of for-

profit education, the students who attend these institutions, and the factors that might

impact the student experience when attending these institutions. The purpose of this

qualitative phenomenological study is to examine the lived experience of students who

are attending, or who have been attended, for-profit institutions, and to provide rich

descriptions of these experiences as a basis for understanding why they chose these

institutions and persisted in their program. This chapter outlines the methodology and

design of the research.

Qualitative study. This study was designed to be qualitative research. Hesse-

Biber and Leavy (2011) described qualitative research as a means to explore the social

meaning people attribute to circumstances, situations, and experiences. Creswell (2008)

suggested that qualitative research is best suited for research problems in which the

variables are not known and need to be explored. Qualitative researchers often use

interviews, focus groups, and visual and audiovisual analysis to study a central

phenomenon, concept, idea, or process (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2011).

The focus of this research was to investigate an under-researched aspect and

develop substantial descriptions (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2011) of the reality of the student

experience at for-profit colleges. This involved gathering data directly from the student

47

population through interviews to gain a deeper understanding of a phenomenon. In

addition to recording students’ descriptions of experience during interviews, the

researcher recorded notes on her perception of the participant narratives. The

descriptions derived from interview transcripts, notes of observations, and related

documentation from the institution were treated to ongoing analysis during the study.

This approach provided the researcher with a degree of flexibility to change a line of

inquiry and move in a new direction as needed; the technique provided the researcher

with a deeper understanding of the phenomenon being studied (Hesse-Biber & Leavy,

2011). Information was gathered from study participants via questions on an interview

protocol (Creswell, 2008). From the answers provided by study participants, there were

themes, or invariant elements, that emerged and resulted in a rich description of the

phenomenon.

Phenomenology. Phenomenology is rooted deep in the works of philosophers

such as Kant, Hegel, and Mach, and was formally introduced by Edmund Husserl at the

beginning of the twentieth century (Moran, 2000; Guignon, 2006). Husserl became

known as the founder, or pioneer, of phenomenology (Moran, 2000; Moustakas, 1994)

with a desire to convert philosophy into a strict science (Guignon, 2006). Husserl

believed the key to separating science from philosophy was to direct attention toward

meanings that connect our experience of objects (Guignon, 2006). Phenomenological

principles assert that scientific investigation is valid when the information gained comes

about through rich description that allows for understanding of the meanings, or essences,

of experience (Moustakas, 1994).

48

In phenomenological studies, the researcher determines the underlying structures

of an experience by interpreting the given descriptions of a situation in which the

experience occurs (Moustakas, 1994). The researcher has a personal interest in whatever

she is seeking to know, yet she refrains from making suppositions. Instead, the

researcher focuses on a specific topic freshly and naively, constructs a question or

problem to guide the study, and derives findings that will provide the basis for further

reflection and research (Moustakas, 1994). Moustakas (1994) noted that in

phenomenology, a relationship exists between the external perception of natural objects

and internal perceptions, memories, and judgements. Phenomenology seeks to explore

meaning through experiences and is committed to descriptions of experiences to derive

meaning; it is not an exercise in providing explanations or analyses about a phenomenon.

(Moustakas, 1994).

The researcher chose the phenomenological design for this study to derive

meaning from the lived experiences of students who attend, or have attended, for-profit

colleges. Many options exist in the higher education market, but little is known, from a

qualitative perspective, about the reasons why students choose to enroll in a for-profit

school, or their experiences during enrollment that influence their decision to persist in a

program of study or withdraw. A qualitative approach was chosen because access to a

large enough population of for-profit students to draw a reliable sample for a quantitative

study would be difficult, and is often cited in the literature as a reason for the dearth of

studies on this student population. However, a small sample size of ten to twelve

students is achievable and lends itself to a qualitative study. Much can be learned from

the themes that emerge from student reflections about their experience at for-profit

49

colleges. The descriptions can provide useful information that can inform student affairs

professionals and higher education administrators at both for-profit and public

institutions.

Research Design

Researchers using a phenomenological design rely primarily on in-depth

interviews to collect data. Interviewing was used to examine the reasons why students

attend for-profit colleges and their experiences while enrolled at an institution.

Moustakas (1994) outlined the methods and procedures for conducting a

phenomenological study (p. 103):

1. Discovering a topic or questions involving social meanings and significance.

2. Conducting a comprehensive review of the research literature.

3. Constructing a set of criteria to locate participants.

4. Providing participants with instructions on the nature and purpose of the study,

obtaining informed consent, ensuring confidentiality, and describing the

responsibilities of the researcher and the participants.

5. Developing a set of questions or topics to guide the interview process.

6. Conducting and recording a person-to-person interview that focuses on the topic and

questions. A follow-up interview may also be needed.

7. Organizing and analyzing the data to facilitate the development of descriptions, and

the synthesis of meanings.

Phenomenological methodology is used to examine the meaning of the lived

experiences of several individuals about a concept or the phenomenon and exploring the

structures of consciousness in human experiences (Creswell, 2008). In this context

50

phenomenological methodology works to help discover the perceptions of motivation and

experience that exist among students at for-profit institutions.

Participants and Sampling Technique

Creswell (2008) suggested that a sample size of ten or fewer participants is

appropriate for qualitative research, and in-depth interviews of less than two hours are

effective in collecting usable study data. The primary participants for the current study

included eleven currently enrolled students and alumni of a diverse set of for-profit

institutions throughout the United States. This group included first generation students,

transfer students, and students without a high school diploma or general equivalency

degree (GED). The instrument used in the study was developed by the researcher.

Qualitative research methods include in-depth interviewing of small samples that

are selected purposefully (Patton, 2002). The purposeful sampling allowed for the

selection of information-rich cases that provided the opportunity to learn as much as

possible about the participants’ motivation to choose a for-profit college and their

experience during their time at the institution. The intent was to include a diverse range

of student participants in the interviewing process, representing individuals of both

genders and varied ages and ethnic backgrounds.

Purposeful and snowball sampling methods (Creswell, 2008) were used for this

study. The intent of purposive sampling is to identify participants that have the

experiences necessary to address the research questions (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2011),

and select information-rich cases that will provide insight about a particular phenomenon

(Patton, 2002). Purposeful sampling enabled the researcher to access the targeted

population (for-profit students) quickly. In snowball sampling (Creswell 2008; Polit &

51

Beck, 2006), participants receive a request to identify others to become members of the

sample. Participants were recruited using email, social media, and personal networking.

The researcher identified eleven potential study participants through (1) email contact

with students at for-profit institutions, (2) social media, such as Facebook, and (3) via

LinkedIn. By responding to the request, potential study participants demonstrated their

willingness to participate. To avoid undue influence or potential coercion of participants

for this study, recruitment efforts did not include for-profit students known to the

researcher, or students who were enrolled in a course the researcher was teaching.

Each student participant was asked to schedule an interview of forty minutes to

one hour. In-person interviews were the preferred method in order to develop rapport

with study participants and increase communication; however, due to the distance

between the researcher and participants, in-person interviews were not possible.

Therefore, telephone interviews and the Skype web-conferencing tool were utilized for

this study. Prior to an interview, an informed consent form was reviewed by each study

participant, and confidentiality of student data was discussed. The consent form was

developed according to the requirements of the Benedictine University Institutional

Review Board. An intake form to collect basic demographic data and information about

program and school involvement was completed by each student prior to an interview.

To maintain confidentiality, each participant was assigned a pseudonym and this

pseudonym was associated with the intake form data and narratives from the interview.

To ensure the integrity of the research data, participant information and narratives from

interviews were stored on an electronic storage device. This device was kept in a locked

cabinet, and the electronic files were accessed by the researcher only.

52

Data Collection

The primary method of phenomenological research is the long interview

(Moustakas, 1994). For this study, data collection was accomplished through semi-

structured interviews using a general interview guide in which the researcher formulated

questions about the motivation to attend a for-profit college and the participants’

experience as a student at a for-profit school. The phenomenological interview is an

interactive and informal process that utilizes open-ended comments and questions

(Moustakas, 1994). The presentation of these questions are flexible and can be adapted

in each individual interview (Patton, 2002). Semi-structured, one-on-one, in-depth

interviews prove to be the most successful in soliciting thoughts and feelings from

participants (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2011). Interviews took place via telephone

conference call or Skype web-conferencing and were recorded with an electronic device.

The researcher took written notes to track developing and recurring themes, and to

determine new questions to ask or reframe for more clarification. At the end of the

interview, the researcher documented personal impressions of the interview in her notes.

Transcriptions were reviewed as quickly as possible to consider emerging categories and

themes, areas that needed clarification, or questions that needed to be reframed.

Information from documents or electronic sources are often used in qualitative

research to supplement data from interviewing (Bogdan & Biklan, 1998). Print

documents from for-profit institutions, at which study participants attended, were not

readily available for viewing. Accordingly, the researcher relied on electronic sources of

information from institutional websites to gather additional data for this study. The data

from the college websites was used to corroborate the themes, or invariant elements, that

53

arose from the interviews with study participants. These information sources were also

used to determine if advertising and other materials provided to students influence the

motivation to attend a particular for-profit college. To further validate the participant

data, and to triangulate the data, narratives from two faculty members and an admissions

staff member employed at for-profit colleges were included as a means to corroborate the

data. These individuals presented themselves as volunteers to participate in the study and

were provided information about the purpose and scope of the study. Informed consent

forms were obtained prior to the interviews.

Data Analysis

All interview transcriptions, notes and documentation were organized so they

could be easily located and accessed. All data was stored on a portable electronic storage

device. Narratives from participant interviews were individually transcribed and coded

by the researcher. Each participant was assigned a pseudonym which was used to

identify statements.

The researcher used the modified Stevick-Colaizzi-Keen method to analyze

phenomenological data as described in Moustakas (1994) and recommended by Creswell

(2007) for phenomenological research:

1. Using the transcripts, each participant statement was analyzed with respect to the

description of the experience.

2. All relevant statements were recorded.

3. Each non-repetitive, non-overlapping statement was listed; these are the meaning units

of the experience.

4. Meaning units were clustered into themes.

54

5. The meaning units and themes were synthesized into a description of the experience;

including examples.

6. A composite description of the meanings was constructed, integrating all individual

description into a universal description of experience representing the group as a whole.

Following these steps, the researcher reviewed the transcripts to consider each

participant’s statements with respect to the description of the experience. Relevant

statements were recorded in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, and non-repetitive, non-

overlapping statements were listed. These statements were meaning units of the

experience and were organized into themes, or invariant elements, on the spreadsheet.

These themes were synthesized into a description of the experience using examples from

the participant narratives. A composite description of the meanings was constructed,

integrating all individual descriptions into a universal description of the experiences.

Memos and notes from the interviews supported the analysis of the data, as did

the information obtained from institutional websites. The researcher evaluated the data

for consistency and credibility and to determine if the data supported the understandings

of the themes that emerged from the participant descriptions. The researcher then

compared the findings to prior research and checked for alternative explanations and new

interpretations to identify potential themes that would augment the literature review for

this study, or as a starting point for future research.

Credibility and Dependability

Validation of research findings in qualitative research focuses on ensuring the

data provided by the participants are accurate and credible (Creswell & Plano Clark,

2011). The qualitative research perspective relies on the participants’ views for

55

credibility as the only justifiable evaluator of the results. Credibility refers to the degree a

researcher’s analyses find participant agreement. Member check is the most critical

credibility technique (Lincoln, 1999; Merriam, 1998) in which the researcher allows the

participants to review the researcher’s final interpretation of the experience. Data from

this study came from telephone and Skype interviews using open-ended questions from

an interview protocol. In member check, each participant was given exclusive access to

their interview transcripts and invited to read them thoroughly for clarity and accuracy,

and to provide additional insight and information. Dependability is the degree to which

results are consistent with data and emphasizes the importance of the researcher to

account for the ever-evolving context within which the research takes place. The focus of

the research is not to generate replicability, rather it was to describe the phenomena

through those who experience it. Member checks enhanced the level of dependability of

this qualitative study.

Use of triangulation can improve credibility in qualitative studies; interviews,

observation, focus groups, researcher notes and memos, and documentation, in concert,

compensates for the individual limitations of a single method (Shenton, 2004).

Triangulation was used to validate participant data and to obtain rich data to deepen

understanding of the phenomenon. According to Creswell (2008), triangulation is used to

corroborate evidence from individuals, types of data, or methods of data collection to

support a theme. Drawing from multiple sources of information served to validate the

study and ensures that the data are accurate and credible. This study focused on

incorporating three sets of data for analysis: 1) semi-structured interviews with students,

2) analysis of the marketing materials on for-profit websites, and 3) interviews with

56

faculty and staff. Interviews explored the lived experiences of for-profit students, their

rationale for choosing a for-profit college, and motivation to persist in a program of

study. Analysis of the for-profit college websites helped the researcher to determine if

marketing materials have an influence on college choice, and were used to corroborate

experiences communicated by participants within the study sample. Finally, interviews

with faculty and staff members provided valuable data on the student experience from

another perspective. The quality and credibility of the data was high because of the

ability to crosscheck consistency of information from all sources.

Ethical principles

Researchers are guided by ethical principles when working with human

participants of a study. It is important to have clearly established agreements with

participants, a recognition of confidentiality and informed consent, and procedures for

ensuring full disclosure of the nature, purpose, and requirements of the research project

(Moustakas, 1994). For this qualitative study, the processes were open-ended, flexible to

be shifted if necessary, with alternatives permitted in response to participants’ ideas and

suggestions (Moustakas, 1994). Participants were free to withdraw at any time.

Information about the nature and purpose of the study was provided to participants prior

to the study. There was minimal risk in terms of health and well-being of the participants

as they took part in this study.

Interviews were conversational and open-ended, with misconceptions and

misinterpretations clarified as they occurred. Research participants had the opportunity

to review, and confirm or alter, the research data to correspond to his or her perception of

the experience. Information that is considered private, possibly damaging, was removed

57

or disguised to protect the identity of the participant. Confidentiality was maintained and

all data was stored on the researcher’s electronic storage device. These data will be

destroyed after the completion of this study.

Limitations

The subjective nature of qualitative research can result in difficulty in establishing

reliability and validity of the data obtained. The sample size for a study of this type was

very small and represented a fraction the for-profit student population and experience.

Furthermore, participants may not be able, or willing, to fully express their experiences at

for-profit colleges. Researcher bias and sampling method could affect the reliability and

generalizability of this research. To reduce this risk, Patton (2002) suggested that the

researcher engage in mental cleansing process to remove predispositions and biases as

much as possible. Prior to the start of this study and during the data collection,

analyzing, and reporting, the researcher continually reviewed biases and perceptions that

might affect the validity of the study. Although not a factor in this study, in-person

interviews, as a data collection method, might increase the risk of participant bias and

prevent the disclosure of personal information. To improve the validity of this

phenomenological study, the researcher utilized a series of measures as suggested by

Moustakas (1994):

1. Sampling was purposefully drawn and logical.

2. The researcher completely suspended her beliefs during data collection, and made a

concentrated effort to avoid interference with the interpretation of data.

3. During data analysis, themes were allowed to emerge from the data naturally.

58

4. The researcher allowed the “essence”, or meaning, of the phenomena reveal itself; and

used the insight into the meaning of the phenomenon to construct a unique description.

In addition to sample size and technique, and the possibility of researcher bias and

presumptions, a third limitation was related to the study design itself. Most of the

participant interviews were done via telephone or Skype, and the recordings could have

resulted in misunderstanding or misinterpretation of meaning. Although participants

were provided instructions prior to the interview and an interview guide was utilized,

there may have been uncertainty about the information as well. Lastly, despite the

knowledge and assurances of confidentiality of the information participants would

provide for this research, there were a few potential study participants who declined to be

interviewed because they were either (a) in the process of entering into a lawsuit with a

for-profit college, (b) n default on a student loan from a for-profit school, or (c) did not

want to disclose negative information that would identify the college or be linked back to

the participant. Similar factors may have prevented study participants from fully

disclosing their experiences at for-profit institutions.

Summary

This study took a qualitative phenomenological approach to exploring the lived

experiences of students attending for-profit colleges and uncovering the motivation and

rationale for choosing a proprietary institution. The sample population included 11

current students and alumni from a diverse set of for-profit institutions. Purposeful and

snowball sampling techniques were utilized to recruit participants via email, social

media, and networking. Data was collected using semi-structured interviews from an

interview protocol with pre-determined questions, observations of company websites, and

59

interviews with an admissions staff member and faculty from for-profit institutions. Data

analysis was achieved using the Stevick-Colaizzi-Keen method described by Moustakas

(1994). Credibility and dependability were assured through member check (Lincoln,

1999) and triangulation (Creswell, 2008). Ethical considerations were addressed through

ensuring confidentiality, communicating informed consent, and enacting procedures for

ensuring full disclosure of the nature, purpose, and requirements of the research.

Participants were assigned a pseudonym, and only the researcher had access to the

student data. Data from interviews and other related information was stored on an

external storage device and kept secured in a locked file.

60

Chapter 4: Results and Analysis

Overview

The purpose of this qualitative, phenomenological study was to understand the

lived experiences of students attending for-profit higher education institutions and the

motivation for choosing a for-profit school. The data collected from this study will

contribute to the existing scholarly literature on student experience and college choice,

and can inform higher education administrators and student affairs personnel within for-

profit and public institutions in developing an understanding of how to provide improved

support and services to enable students to persist and complete a program of study.

This study used purposeful sampling to recruit undergraduate students who are

attending, or have attended, a for-profit institution; students were contacted via email,

phone, and through social media, such as Facebook and LinkedIn. A total of 26 students

were contacted to participate in the study. Eighteen students responded to the invitation

and expressed an interest in the study; three students were graduate-level and were not

selected, one student declined to participate, and three could not be contacted by email or

phone. The sample was composed of eleven participants (42% of the population), of

which one student was male and ten of the students were female. The mean age within

the population was approximately 37 years. All participants (100%) attended a for-profit

college as an undergraduate student and took a full-time course load. Seventy-three

percent of the sample identified as Caucasian/White and 27% identified as Black/African

American. A diverse number of for-profit institutions were represented in this study

61

including University of Phoenix, ITT Technical College, The Art Institutes, Corinthian

College, Vatterott College, Midwest Technical Institute, Walden University, and Argosy

University. Within the study sample, 64% of the participants reported pursuing or

obtaining an associate degree and 36% were pursuing or obtaining a bachelor degree. All

study participants were classified as independent students for financial aid purposes, and

ten of the eleven participants indicated that they received some form of financial aid.

One participant relied on work and family contributions to pay college-related tuition and

fees.

Eight of the participants were interviewed by telephone, and three participants

provided information via a Google web form due to scheduling conflicts. Information

from the Google web form was imported into a Microsoft Excel document and interviews

were transcribed in a Microsoft Word document. Pertinent statements from the telephone

and Skype interview transcriptions were selected and placed in the Microsoft Excel

spreadsheet to determine major themes and enable the construction of pertinent

descriptions of the phenomena.

For the purpose of triangulation, two additional data sources were included in the

results in conjunction with student experience data: 1) experience of for-profit staff and

faculty, and 2) information from the websites of for-profit colleges. By virtue of their

positions, staff and faculty at for-profit colleges have a unique perspective on the student

experience. To develop a deeper understanding of the student experience, input from

student affairs personnel and faculty members employed at for-profit institutions was

obtained through informal phone interviews or in-person. Of the three individuals who

responded, two were faculty members and one was an admissions staff member. The

62

third source of triangulation data was derived from analysis of several websites of for-

profit colleges the participants attended. Enrollment at for-profit colleges is dependent

on marketing and recruitment efforts, and most of these institutions are using the

company website as a primary means of marketing programs and services in an effort to

appeal to a niche population of nontraditional, minority, and female students.

Results

The Moustakas (1994) modified Stevick–Colaizzi– Keen method of analysis of

phenomenological data was used to process the collected data. Each participant

statement was considered with respect to its significance in describing the experience.

All relevant statements were recorded and key phrases were grouped as related to the

experience. Invariant elements, or meaning units of experience, were clustered into

themes. The process of horizontalization revealed several themes making up the

collective description of the participants’ lived experience as a student at a for-profit

college. The invariant meaning units and themes were synthesized into a description of

the textures of the experience and verbatim examples from participants were included.

Through imaginative variation, the researcher examined the data in a variety of

perspectives to consider all possible meanings to construct a description of the structures

of the individual experiences.

As themes were integrated with the research questions, five were identified as

being significant to this study. The main five themes that constructed descriptions of the

lived experience of student experience at for-profit colleges will be discussed and

included: (a) student-customer service, (b) interaction with staff, faculty, and peers, (c)

63

cost of attending, (d) perceived value of the education received, and (e) rationale for

choosing to attend a for-profit institution.

Student-customer service. One of the main themes that emerged in the data

from conversations with participants, and aligned with the research questions, was the

feeling that there was a high level of support, or customer service, at the campus

throughout the students’ lifecycles. Students who experience significant support during

enrollment tend to have greater satisfaction and will likely persist in a program (Bailey et

al., 2003: Bennett et al., 2010; Howard-Vital, 2006; Kelly, 2001; Kinser, 2006b). The

majority of participants indicated that they felt supported in their educational endeavors,

and most of the students expressed satisfaction in the overall institutional environment

and culture; from the initial campus visit, to the onboarding process, and as they

progressed through their academic program to completion. The researcher asked the

participants to describe their experience with regard to the initial visit to campus and the

onboarding process, five responses indicated a positive experience. Charlotte stated:

Here I was, a fifty-year-old woman going back to school. I mean, I had never been to college and wasn’t sure what to expect. When I walked in it really didn’t look like a college. Kind of had the impression of a doctor’s office. But the receptionist was really nice and, oh my goodness, the people who talked to me and gave me a tour were the greatest. They told me I could start college right away, and even helped me fill out all the paperwork. I even got a drink cup and tee shirt before I left. Can’t beat that, right?

Kris expressed similar feelings in her experience:

I thought the staff was friendly and the application part wasn’t too bad. The financial aid people walked me through filling out the forms online, which was good because I needed money to pay rent and get a new cell phone. Since I wanted to maybe be a physical trainer, they showed me the equipment room, but I didn’t actually get to see the teachers or a class.

Savannah indicated: “My friend went to that college and liked the people who worked

there. Thought I’d give it a try and everyone was cool”, and Kelsey mentioned:

64

Um…I had just been fired from my job at Target and I had to find a way to support my family. Gosh, I didn’t know what I was going to do next. I have three kids all under 13 and I’m a single mom. So when I came in, I felt like they listened and understood me and were interested in helping me get a career and a good paying job.

A couple of the participants discussed “welcome” or orientation activities before the first

day of class. Janie noted that

we sat in an orientation class in the morning and got to meet all the staff and teachers, who were really nice and helpful. I mostly remember watching a video about paying back our student loans and listening to several speakers. I liked having help with getting into college – it was totally new to me.

Of a similar experience at another college, Sydney mentioned:

Yeah, there was a barbeque and meet and greet with other new students and everyone at the college. It was kind of cool, I guess. My advisor was really nice…she was always there when I had a question and the people in the office seemed to care about me and the job I wanted to get into.

The researcher sought to understand more deeply the participants’ experiences as they

began their academic programs and continued to completion. Most of the participants

experienced a continued level of support from staff members, and yet others felt there

were deficiencies with student support services at their respective institutions. Charlotte

related:

I had the darnedest time paying my bill. They always bent over backwards to find ways to help me out. The person who helped me with my application kept calling to check on me to see how I was doing when I was gone after my dog died. She kept calling and telling me I needed to come back. I like that they cared enough about me to call. Oh, and when I had trouble with math I got tutoring.

Laura noted that “people would smile and say hello whenever you saw them in the

hallway – even the director of the college”, and Kris mentioned that the financial aid staff

were helpful when there were issues: “My financial aid situation was a mess, but they

were always there to help. I’m not sure how they got it all worked out, but I got my

money”. Joe discussed his experience with student services:

65

I was not aware of the private student loans they gave me. They added them in where there was shortfall, putting it in as part of the [financial] aid. Only after I researched, I found out what they did. And they called constantly or emailed daily each quarter to let you know you have aid forms to fill out. They seemed to be more concerned with collecting their money and less on the actual education. Between the lie with the private loans they financed on their own, and the lack of real world education, I would never have enrolled.

One participant related that the student services department at the college had a food

bank. Kelsey stated:

There was a food bank. I mean, I had no job at the time and with three small kids at home, I could go in to the food bank after classes were over to get a small bag of food to take home. Um, one time I even got some gas money so I could come in to classes. That was nice.

Three students discussed their experiences with the career services department at

for-profit colleges, particularly when seeking a job while in school or for post-graduation

job placement. Laura liked the individualized assistance: “The person in the career

[services] office helped me write my resume and practice for interviews, and that really

helped me”, and Kelsey noted, “First off, and this is really cool, but the college actually

had a clothes closet with stuff to borrow for interviews. Some of it was stuff my aunt

would wear, but I didn’t have any nice interview clothes”. Louise’s lived experience

with the career services staff at her institution was similar:

I’m a 55-year-old grandmother raising five grandkids because my daughter is in prison. Uh…so it’s hard…we barely scrape by most days. So, I thought I would try to find a part-time job. The lady in the job office [career services] called around and found a couple of possibilities for me. If I don’t get work soon…I don’t know what’s going to happen.

There were three participants who communicated displeasure with their experience with

student support services at their for-profit institutions. Maggie said:

I have absolutely no help in finding a job. So they tell me nothing is available at this time. I totally need to work, and I might have to drop out if I can't get a job…see they told me they would help me get a job while I was in school, you know?

66

Laney described a similar experience

When I came in, no one told me that I would not be able to get a job in medical assisting because of my felony conviction. No one said anything about that. They made it seem like I would get a good paying job. Um…so after graduation I applied to a couple of clinics. Then I find out they don’t hire people with convictions, at least not where we live. Uh…so I go back in and talk to [Career Services representative] and he tells me it will be hard for me to get a job. What? I would not have gone to college if I knew I’d never get a job in the medical field. No one told me…I feel so lied to.

Joe reflected on his overall experience with support services at a for-profit college: “The

issue was there was no assistance. I was supposed to have help with job placement. I did

not get that, and since it was online it seemed like there were no services or assistance”.

One participant did not complete a program of study and eventually withdrew

from college. Sydney recalled her experience:

Well, I had every intention of getting my degree, but life happens…you know? I just got out of high school and was out on my own for the first time. I think I had been in for a few classes and got involved with a guy…it was a bad situation. It got so bad, I moved out and slept in my car at the school parking lot. So yeah…I could of made better choices at the time. Anyway, I started to fail classes and just dropped out. The guy at the college kept calling to see if I would come back…like every day. Said time was running out or something. And they kept calling about my account…like I can really pay, right? Um, it’s still not a good time for me. I might go back someday though.

Most participants expressed an excitement about attending college for the first

time, or after a period of years, and that the student support staff offered encouragement

and guidance in achieving educational goals even after enrollment. Charlotte recalled:

Sometimes I would get an email or text from one of the folks in the office telling me to have a good day and to check in if I needed anything. That was a personal touch that I wouldn’t have expected not having been in college before.

Kelsey noted:

One of the advisors would stop me in the hallway and talked to me about how things were going. One day I mentioned I needed a ride home and she helped me find a student who lived close to where I lived, and I got a lift.

67

Laura attended a small for-profit college and described events the college would have

during her time there.

Most of the activities for students were meetings or guest speakers talking about a career or how to get a job. There would be pizza parties were we would hear the dean talk about having good attendance. Oh, and there were awards for attendance or getting good grades. These things weren’t really what I expected to do at college.

Joe mentioned that, as an online student, he received emails about college events, but

noted:

How are online students, a thousand miles away, supposed to attend these things? Seriously? And they had these online web things on finding jobs or whatever that always happened when I was at work. So much for working around my schedule like they told me – sometimes I couldn’t even get the help desk on the phone when I needed help.

Sydney remembered: “Around Thanksgiving, they brought in an entire turkey dinner for

all the students. There was a drawing for five turkeys to take home and I got of them”,

and when asked about what she remembered about college events, Kris stated: “I liked

graduation the most. It was huge. Everyone [college staff] was really nice and helpful.

My family was all there…it was really special”.

Composite description. The composite description is based on the experiences of

study participants in their interactions with student affairs staff members and higher

education administrators at for-profit colleges. The participant narratives suggest a

positive experience in their interactions with student affairs personnel, which contributed

to an overall sense of satisfaction with the college. Research by Edens (2012) suggested

that satisfaction is directly related to student persistence. The helpful and caring staff

offered encouragement and support to study participants and the personalized assistance

ensured a smooth transition through the enrollment process. The hands-on assistance and

a high level of empathy of student affairs staff were mentioned in several participant

68

narratives. Intrusive advising on the part of most organizational staff was apparent.

These frequent interactions with student affairs staff and continuous communication were

perceived by study participants as a positive experience influencing the decision to

remain in college. Only a couple of study participants reported a negative experience

with frequent phone calls, a home visit, or collections. There was an expectation by some

participants that the career services department at a college would provide employment

opportunities either during the student’s enrollment or after graduation. The inability to

find work as expected had an impact on the level of satisfaction with the college

experience.

Experience of an admissions staff member. Sue was employed by a for-profit

college in the Midwest as a lead in the admissions department. In her position, at least at

this particular college, she was responsible for recruiting, initial contact with students,

advising students of degree options, helping them navigate through the enrollment and

onboarding processes, and following up with students at various points to ensure forward

progress in their program. She recalled the role of the admissions staff in student-

customer service:

We were trained from the very beginning to think of students as customers and to do what it took to get them in the door and seated in classes. I mean, that’s why we were there. There were enrollment quotas, and the campus director posted a leaderboard so we could keep track of everyone’s progress. It was high stress at times. The fall terms were usually full, but spring and summer required a lot of cold calling and direct mailings. We didn’t have a large population as it was. So, any potential student walking in the door was gold. I remember a former campus director sending recruiters out to visit nursing homes and homeless shelters to seek out possible students, and one recruiter tried to get access to the local jail to see if we could offer online classes. And, we took them all…it didn’t matter where they came from. Sure, we catered to the student…no doubt. I hate to say it, but it’s sort of like a car dealership – you’re the most important person in the building when you walk in, and every need will be taken care of. It was a lot like that with our students.

69

Sue’s experience as an admissions staff member at a for-profit college demonstrated the

important role of the customer service function during matriculation. After a student was

enrolled in a program, the responsibilities of the student services staff would then change:

Once students were in and enrolled, each of us was assigned a set of students to remain in contact with. We would check in with our students at various points, usually about midway through a program and nearer to the end. The college was small enough that we were able to have several events during the year for students, like pizza parties and such. It was really all about retention at that point…keeping up with students and keeping them in class until they graduated. Considering that most of our students were poor and many were single parents without jobs, it was a chore to keep them in class especially after the loan disbursements, when a lot of them disappeared. A lot of phone work on our part, I can tell you, but retention was a serious concern with our campus director. We were never really able to save them all…there were a lot of drops.

The lived experience of an admissions staff member provided a lens through which the

student-customer services function at a for-profit college could be viewed. The student-

centric admissions staff members were responsible for ensuring that students received

exceptional support and assistance during matriculation and after. This was supported by

the experiences revealed by the study participants; admissions staff were generally the

first point of contact for the study participants, and were identified as being friendly,

caring, and interested in the students’ academic needs and goals. The experience with

admissions staff, and other student-customer services staff as well, played a significant

role in a participant’s decision to enroll in a program of study. The continued points of

contact during a student’s academic program strongly influenced the likelihood that the

student would persist in a program of study, when taken in context with other variables,

such as interactions with faculty and peers and availability of financial aid.

Review of institutional websites. The analysis of student-customer service

functions at several for-profit college websites corroborated the lived experiences of the

study participants and the admissions staff member. University of Phoenix (UOP) is one

70

of the nation’s largest for-profit institutions. The student-customer service functions

were described on the company’s website (University of Phoenix, 2016):

Providing help from start to finish; students are never alone, and support,

resources and guidance are available throughout a student’s lifecycle.

University of Phoenix students have their own “Graduation Team” which includes

an enrollment representative, a finance representative and an academic

representative to help students stay on track from enrollment to graduation.

After graduation, students have access to “Phoenix Career Services” which assists

with resume writing and interview skills, and provides access to jobs for

University graduates.

Additionally, student support services are available at all hours and students have access

to courses, tuition payment options, bookstore, and other services via an online portal.

Midwest Technical Institute (MTI) is a small, for-profit college based in the

Midwest. On its “Student Services” webpage, MTI described their student-customer

services as “geared toward helping each student with their individual needs” during

students’ “transition into and out of school” (Midwest Technical Institute, n.d.). The

webpage described several ways in which the student-customer services staff would

assist students: Transportation and housing assistance, job assistance, childcare location

assistance, student activities, resume building, tutoring, and verification of enrollment

and employment. Information about the availability of support was not clearly evident on

the website.

Walden University (WU) is a large, private for-profit institution based in

Minnesota. According to the information on the company website, Walden University is

71

a student-focused institution dedicated to providing an educational experience for

working professional. To appeal to nontraditional students, WU described how it

supports the unique needs of adult learners through quality programs, actionable learning,

exceptional student support, creating global connections, and fostering lifelong learning

(Walden University, n.d.). In addition to 24/7 student services, students are assigned an

enrollment advisor who is the students’ primary contact with the college. Students also

have access to team of financial aid and academic advisors who assist them throughout

their program.

The description of these services substantiates the stories of the lived experiences

of many of the study participants at their respective for-profit institutions. For-profit

institutions typically rely on exceptional customer service as a means to retain students

from entry to graduation and it is evident from the websites that most have a student-

centric emphasis from a customer service perspective. Keeping students enrolled and

having them persist to completion may be viewed from a couple of perspectives. First,

the high level of student-customer service might be attributed to the mission of for-profit

institutions to ensure a continued revenue stream and a healthy bottom-line. Enrollments

equate to revenue. Secondly, continued regulatory oversight of the for-profit sector, with

regard to improving time to completion rates, likely plays a role in the student-centered

approach which serves the purpose of attempting to keep students in school to complete a

program of study.

This section addressed the research question for this study: What are the

students’ perspectives of the role of customer (student) service functions at the

institution? The data from the participants suggested that the overall experience with the

72

student support functions at their institutions was positive. The interaction of student

services personnel throughout the student lifecycle made an impact on most of the study

participants and aided their progress to the completion of a program of study. The data

obtained from the admissions staff member and the information found on the college

websites supported the customer service approach to student services as it related to the

availability of support hours, positive interactions with student service staff, and

marketing strategies to appeal to niche student populations.

Interaction with teachers and peers. The second theme that emerged from the

data was the participants’ interactions with teachers and peers, and overall academic

experience, during their enrollment at a for-profit college. The framework for this study

focuses, in part, on the interaction of students with faculty, staff, and peers as they

progress through the completion of a program of study. The aim of the researcher was to

explore the student academic experience in the classroom to provide descriptions of its

impact on persistence and the achievement of academic goals. Interactions with

instructors, and in some cases, peers, played a significant role in participant engagement

and persistence. Charlotte noted that instructors “were there to answer questions”, and

Savannah related

they all had an impact on me. Some of my classmates became friends outside of school and were there to listen when things weren’t going well. And, the teachers - I loved most of my teachers. They were understanding and seemed to know a lot about what they were teaching.

Maggie echoed a similar sentiment about her instructors:

I thought the teachers were awesome. They would ask about my family and how I was doing. It seemed like they really cared about me. I did learn a lot too because most of our teachers also had jobs in the same area.

73

Sydney reflected on the small class size and individualized assistance from her teacher at

a for-profit college:

What I really liked about the college was that the class size was small, and I enjoyed some of the classes because we did cool activities. When I needed help with something, the teacher was there…and was willing to help if I needed extra time on homework assignments. One time I missed an assignment because I was in the hospital and the teacher gave me a passing grade.

Several of the participants were enrolled in online classes at a for-profit institution

believed instructor communication impacted their ability to achieve outcomes. Joe

reported that communication with the instructor was essential in an online class:

When I had a problem logging in to class or sending an email about an assignment, I would usually hear back within a day or so. Not always, though, for some teachers. That made it hard to get things turned in on time. But for the most part I didn’t have many issues with getting help from my teachers.

Laura shared her experience and the importance of the teacher in her progress:

She emails me once a week to see how I’m doing and asks if I need any help. I took a class at the community college one time and it seemed like I didn’t hear from my teacher at all. It shows they care about you and want you to be in class.

A couple of participants commented about the knowledge and skills of the instructors.

Kelsey noted: “Most of my teachers know their stuff and work in the field, so I feel like

they know what is needed for me to get a job” and Savannah mentioned:

When I was taking medical assisting classes, the teachers were either nurses or maybe medical assistants. We would do things, like, take blood pressure and all, and I learned a lot that way. Sometimes they didn’t really teach. I don’t know if that makes any sense. We would come in and a teacher would say: “today we are going to learn about doing a strep test”, but we didn’t get any, like, well, lecture or anything. I learned how to do blood pressure or whatever, but didn’t really learn anything about it…

Joe shared his experience in computer information systems classes:

I’m telling you…the classes were so far behind what was happening in real life. It was a complete waste of my time…the courses were outdated and the software was old. Some of the software didn’t work on my PC. It was awful. But I had

74

already spent a lot of time and money in the program and wanted to finish so I stayed in.

When the researcher asked Joe about his experience with the teachers, he commented:

Some of them were okay, and I think a lot of them had to teach with what the college gave them. Some were there only for the paycheck…they didn’t seem interested in teaching. One teacher in a networking class spent time designing apps for his side business…I don’t think he cared one way or the other if we even showed up.

Louise commented on her struggle with e-books and classroom technology, but noted

that her instructors were helpful in giving her assistance:

You know, well, I am used to reading books…you know paper books, and the school has e-books for just about every class. I just can’t get used to that…it is hard to read and find my place. I also remember getting a laptop one time – every student got one – and I had to learn how to use it without any help from anyone. Found out later they charged my account for it, and we didn’t even really use it in class. Well, just call me technology-challenged. I guess if I had to give this a positive spin, the instructors are nice and are willing to go above and beyond in helping me. There were a couple of them stay after to help or I could call on the weekend for help.

One participant related a retention strategy of one of her instructors; Laney recalled a

time in which an instructor came to her house after a she had been absent for a week:

One morning I heard a knock on the door of the apartment I was staying in with my boyfriend. It was my biology teacher from the college. She told me she was there to see why I hadn’t been answering her emails and phone calls…and asked me when I was planning to come back to class. Then she told me I needed to come to class soon. She was nice about it and all. It was strange that she came to my house.

Interactions with instructors and peers outside of the classroom were as equally important

to several of the participants, and engaged them not only academically, but socially, as

well. Charlotte mentioned that she connected with instructors and peers on social media,

which resulted in a higher level of engagement:

A couple of my teachers accepted friend requests on Facebook and I think that helped me get to know them better. A lot of us at school friended each other. I actually thought that was one of the best things about connecting with my

75

classmates. We even had a teacher create a Facebook group for a class, which…um…was a good way to keep up with things going on and to ask questions about the class.

Most of the participants were considered nontraditional students with obligations outside

of school that prevented them from attending college events and activities after hours, but

as Savannah noted:

There were things going on during the school day so that we could attend before or after classes if we wanted to. I liked the Back to Campus picnic where some of my friends and I would hang out. I remember a dance off where some of the teachers were out dancing in front of everyone. It was different to see them doing crazy things instead of teaching…we don’t think of them as human sometimes.

Laney provided a different perspective of her experience with interactions with teachers

and peers:

Even though I lived close to the college, I took a lot of online classes…so I didn’t really get involved with anything. Never heard much about what was going on at the college from my teacher, either, you know? No emails from the college or announcements in the class. Other than the discussions, I didn’t talk much with the other students. I was just mostly there to get the classes over with.

Composite description. The composite description is based on the experiences of

study participants in their interactions with faculty members and peers during their time

at for-profit institutions. The interactions with faculty members strongly influenced both

retention and persistence. The majority of study participants recalled that the interactions

with faculty were critical to their achievement and success at college. Through the lens

of study participants, faculty members at for-profit institutions were considered more

than just a teacher in the classroom; they were mentors offering guidance and support,

advisors for courses and careers, active listeners who took a personal interest, and co-

participants in college life. Interactions took place both in class and out of class, which

enabled students to make a connection with the faculty member and develop rapport with

them. These interactions were significant to a participant’s tendency to remain in school

76

and persist to completion. Whether the high level of interaction by for-profit faculty

members was a natural occurrence, or a result of customer service training often required

in the for-profit business model (Kinser, 2006b), could not be determined from the

descriptions provided by the study participants. This phenomenon would require further

study. What is known, however, is that study participants placed significant value on

their interactions with faculty, and believed this to be, in some cases, the sole factor in

their achievement and success.

Experience of for-profit faculty members. Instructors at for-profit colleges often

have a unique perspective of the student experience due to the amount of time spent with

students both in and out of the classroom. John was an adjunct at a large for-profit

university, and Teresa taught at a smaller for-profit technical school. Both faculty

members related similar experiences with students during their employment at a for-

profit institution. John related his experience:

I am accountant by trade, but really wanted to teach at the college level. So when I had the opportunity to apply for a teaching job at [for-profit college] I jumped at the chance. I guess I wanted to make a difference in the lives of others, mostly. Anyway, the training took place over a couple of days at the local campus. I had never stepped into a classroom before, and really didn’t know what I was doing at first. Luckily the lessons were already made up for us. The students were great, but really unprepared for college work. Some couldn’t read or write, so I’d send those to tutors. I didn’t have the time or knowledge to help them out much. There was a lot of hand-holding going on too…I mean, teachers had to walk students through the lessons to make sure they would pass. I learned a lot about being flexible. Retention was a buzzword. We would be required to attend training on how to retain students, how to advise them, and help them with issues they were having. We were expected to go above and beyond teaching at times. You know…other duties as assigned. The best thing was being a positive part of a student’s life. Sometimes the only positive part. They carried a lot of baggage sometimes, and a lot of them weren’t what you’d expect to see at college…but, it was satisfying to me to make a connection and help them get closer to a degree.

Teresa commented on her experience with for-profit students:

77

I really loved working with students. They were the reason I enjoyed working at the college, and I think I worked harder to build relationships with them. We were a small college with just a few students and at our location so many of them were poor and had families at home to support. They were absent a lot and the director was on us a lot about staying in contact with them to make sure they were in class. I can’t begin to count the phone calls and emails I would send out each week to convince students to come to class. I remember we always tried to make our classes exciting and a good place to learn…I would bring in food too. We had hungry students. Some of the other teachers and I would have a pancake breakfast or bring in sandwiches for the students. We set up a food pantry on campus to help our needier students, and occasionally I’d privately give a couple of dollars to students needing gas money. Over the years, I had students bring their children to class because they couldn’t afford to pay for childcare. It was sad to see some of them deal with drug issues or issues at home. I felt a connection with the students and wanted to help them make it through and get a good job.

Review of institutional websites. For-profit colleges showcase faculty on the

company websites, and promote the idea the faculty members are not only qualified, but

are there to support students as they progress on their degree pathway. The University of

Phoenix website, for example, communicated that the company’s diverse faculty are

working professionals with expertise in their field, bring knowledge and experience to the

classroom, and have the ability to turn theory into skills that can be used in the

workforce. Opportunities for peer interactions, through collaboration in courses and

online communication, were also noted (University of Phoenix, n.d.). Walden

University’s website reported similar information: Faculty members are leaders in their

field who bring experience to the classroom, and are focused on student success (Walden

University, n.d.). The Art Institutes website described faculty as not just teachers, but as

mentors who will do anything to prepare students for leadership roles, and peers share the

same goals, commitment, and love of ideas (The Art Institutes, n.d.). Each of the

websites provided information on ways in which students could get involved with college

life and activities with peers.

78

This section addressed the research question for this study: What is the students’

experience at a for-profit college? The data from the participants indicated that, for the

majority of them, interactions with instructors and peers were instrumental in their

persistence at a for-profit institution. These interactions were varied based on the

experience of the participants; participation in college events and activities, activities in

the classroom, connecting on social media, and communication from the institution;

however, most of the participants experienced inclusivity which made them feel that were

an important part of the college culture. The participants’ feelings of inclusivity were

due, very significantly, to interactions with the instructors at the institution who were

responsible not only for ensuring student progress, but to impact retention through

building rapport and developing strong connections with students. The institutional

websites of several for-profit colleges noted the qualification and credentials of faculty

and their role in student academic success, and interactions with other students through

involvement in class and college life were emphasized. The strongest evidence to

support the study participants’ stories about interactions with faculty came from the

conversation with two faculty members who brought to life the challenging, yet

satisfying, experiences of working with for-profit students.

Cost of Attending. The third theme that arose from the data was the cost of

attending a for-profit institution, and the significant amount of debt participants incurred.

With the exception of one participant, who paid for college through employment and

assistance of parents, each participant relied on federal student aid, federal loans, or

private student loans, to pay for college expenses. Kris remembered not being aware of

the costs she would be incurring when she enrolled in a for-profit school:

79

I really don’t recall them saying anything about how much it was going to cost me. The lady in the admissions office was nice and I just kept filling out papers, but no one told me…uh…exactly what I was going to be charged. Not sure if they forgot or anything…I honestly don’t remember hearing numbers.

Of her experience at a for-profit college, Laney recalled:

Yeah, I knew what it was costing me. I could see how much I was taking out on student loans. What I didn’t realize at the time is that I was taking out the school’s private loans. I felt like I wasn’t given any other options. Anyway, I left school for a while and the calls started. Collection calls, you know? Someone was calling me to either pay, or come back. So I went back because I didn’t have a job and couldn’t pay the monthly payment. For two years of college I have nothing to show to show for it, but no job and $60,000 in student loans. I’d say it was not worth it.

Kelsey was the only participant who received assistance from her parents for tuition and

fees and noted that “there were never any problems. I thought the college did a good job

of letting me know what everything was going to cost”. Louise commented that “it

seems like we have a lot of fees, but doesn’t every college charge a lot? I’m just thankful

I can get loans to pay for school”, and Laura related:

I liked the college and everything, but my main goal was to get in and get a degree as quick as possible…so I didn’t really pay attention at first about how much it was costing me. So, yeah, I’m stuck with a lot to pay back. If I had to do it over again, I’d probably pay more attention.

Joe reported his experience with financing his education at a for-profit college:

Seriously…it cost me a ton of money to go there. I ended up spending four years at ITT and have over $100,000 in student loans…and, I’m not paying on my loans right now. I can’t. At this point I'll never be able to afford to go get my bachelor's degree if I wanted to.

Charlotte mentioned:

I decided to go back to school to get a better paying job, but I never realized it would be so expensive. I liked the college and all, but the tuition was expensive…and all the fees – the technology fee, finance fee, activity fee, laptop fee – you name it. Plus, the book costs were outrageous. I couldn’t pay all this on my own in order to get a degree.

80

Two of the participants indicated that they could not have attended college without

student financial aid or loans. Louise noted: “It’s been a difficult year because I’m

raising my grandkids now…I need loan money to get by” and Laney related her

experience:

I was basically homeless when I went to college… lived in my car for an entire semester. There were times I pulled into the college’s parking lot and slept in my car there…there was absolutely no way I could pay for school on my own. I used student loans to live on and to be honest, that was part of the reason I stayed in. My grades were never great and I kept retaking classes. I didn’t care how much it was costing me.

The high cost of attending a for-profit college, and the resulting student loan debt, are

something Sydney has lived with on a daily basis:

I know I’m not the only one with this problem. I dropped out, so I’m lucky. My student loans aren’t as high as some people’s. But I live with that hanging over my head. The college calls me all the time and I’ve told them I can’t pay. They turned me over [to a collection agency]. Look, I don’t earn much at all from my job. We’re living paycheck to paycheck. Sometimes I think it was all about getting my money.

Composite description. The overall experience with college cost and student loan

debt as recalled by study participants indicated that, although they may or may not have

been aware of the cost of attending a for-profit college, at least initially, cost was

secondary to obtaining an academic credential and securing gainful employment to

provide a better life for themselves and their families. All but one participant received

federal financial aid, and the majority of these students took out student loans to pay for

college. Many of the participants in this study believed they received inadequate

information about student loans from their respective institutions. For alumni, the

amount of debt incurred from their college education is beyond their current capacity to

repay, and most were not employed in their degree field and were earning lower than

expected wages. In a couple of cases, alumni were surprised to learn that student loans

81

were provided by a third-party lender after federal financial aid was exhausted. Study

participants reported that the amount of student loan debt was deeply concerning to them

and a significant source of stress in their daily lives.

Experience of an admissions staff member. As an admissions representative,

Sue was responsible for guiding students through the enrollment process, which included

providing information about tuition, fees, and other charges. She commented:

When I met with students to enroll them, I gave them all the information I thought they would need. We covered the plan for their program and the classes they would be taking, the costs for tuition and any lab or supplemental fees, and how to apply for financial aid. I personally tried to be above the board with the information I gave them, although I can’t speak for others on the admissions team. It was tough sometimes to meet our quota limit when some students backed out at the last minute.

When asked if she felt students were pressured to enroll, Sue responded: “In some cases,

yes. I would call a prospect a few times, then drop it if they wouldn’t respond. Other

team members were more aggressive.”

Review of institutional websites. The for-profit websites accessed for the purpose

of determining if the total cost of attendance is communicated to potential students, all of

the colleges - Walden University, University of Phoenix, Midwest Technical Institute,

and The Art Institutes – provided detailed information on tuition and fees. Midwest

Technical Institute, University of Phoenix, and The Art Institutes websites had a tuition

and fee calculator that would generate the approximate cost for a specified program of

study. Walden University provided tuition and fee charts for each program. Each

company website included a consumer disclosure page that provided additional

information about the school, charges, and other legal information.

This section addressed the research question for this study: What is the students’

experience at a for-profit college? The theme emerged as a response to the researcher’s

82

inquiry about the least desirable qualities of a for-profit college. All but one of the

participants communicated a negative experience related to the cost of attendance, and

resulting student loan debt. Nine of the eleven participants were unaware of the costs

they would incur when enrolling at a for-profit institution, and most did not have

adequate understanding of how their college expenses would be financed. Over half of

the study participants indicated that they were not employed in their field of study and

were working in low-paying positions, such as food service, in which the income from

these jobs prevented them from making regular payments on student loan debt. One

participant noted she was in default on her student loans, and that the meager wages she

was earning were being garnished. Several participants commented that they would have

sought other less-expensive options, such as a community college, had they been fully

aware of the cost. Although the majority of study participants reported not knowing the

costs associated with attending college upfront, the websites of several colleges (all of

which at least one participant attended) did include either a cost calculator or a chart

indicating the total cost of tuition and fees. Furthermore, an interview with an admissions

representative indicated that she would communicate the cost of attending college to

enrollees during the admissions process; although she was aware this may not have

always been the case with other admissions personnel.

Value of a For-Profit Education. Closely related to the cost of attendance was

the fourth theme that emerged from the data: value of a for-profit education. Most of the

participants were satisfied with their academic experience and interactions with faculty

and staff at for-profit colleges, yet there was some uncertainty among some of the

participants as to whether the degree would benefit them in the workforce. Three of the

83

five undergraduate participants reported that they believed a degree would be worth the

time and money. Janie mentioned:

I’ve always wanted to work in the medical field and I feel like this degree will help me get there. Um…I am a little worried about all my student loans…it’s a lot. But, the people here tell me that we have a lot of good paying jobs in the medical assisting field right now. So, I’m sure it’ll be okay…I hope it will be okay.

When the researcher asked Kelsey about whether she felt her education at a for-profit

college was worthwhile, she noted that

I’m going to get a business degree quicker than at the community college. That’s really one of the reasons why I came here. They said I wouldn’t have to take a bunch of extra classes that don’t go toward my degree…so, yeah, I’m going to get out and get a good paying job faster than I would anywhere else.

Louise had similar feelings about her education and its value:

I really think it doesn’t matter where you get your degree…it’s just a piece of paper that says you went to college…and I’m pretty confident I’ll get a job after graduation in a few months. Sure, I’ll have loans to pay back, but I’m already looking and have a couple of leads.

Sydney withdrew from a for-profit college before finishing her program, but remarked: “I

guess the real benefit was the way the people at the college made you feel special. Even

when I dropped, they called to ask me to come back.

Participants who graduated from a for-profit college, however, were more

skeptical that their degree would help them in finding a job, or ensuring higher rate of

pay at their place of employment. This skepticism was largely based on their experience

in securing employment in their chosen career field after graduation. Joe remarked:

My bachelor’s degree in Information Technology is worthless…the program was totally bogus. I’ve tried to get jobs at local computer places, Apple, IBM…you name it. I’ve been to a couple of interviews, but I’ve found out that what they taught us was worthless. Outdated, not current…whatever…that’s what I was told at one. Even my certifications are not helping. It’s got to be ITT and their no-good degree. You want me to sum it up for you? I would have tried to get into a real college if I had known all this upfront. And the sad thing is…I’ll be paying for this worthless education for a very long time.

84

Charlotte’s experience during her enrollment at a for-profit college was generally

positive; however, after graduating she had difficulty in finding work in her field:

Well…I wish I could tell you that I’m working as a medical assistant, which is what I got my degree in. I did my externship at a chiropractic office and I thought maybe I’d end up there…but, no. After all the promises of helping me find a job in medical assisting, I’m still at my same job…a waitress at Steak ‘n Shake. Well, I do sometimes call the career office at the college to see if they have job postings, but so far no luck.

When the researcher asked Charlotte if she believed the degree program had been a

worthwhile investment for her money, Charlotte continued:

I still have high hopes that I will get a break and find a job where I can use my degree. I liked the people at the college, especially the teachers, and it seemed to me that we were learning the latest medical assisting things. I don’t know if the degree is any good. I haven’t had one single call for an interview and I graduated last year. It’s a little depressing. I’m a fifty-year-old waitress with a college degree…and student loan payments that I’m not sure I’ll be able to keep up with. You know…I liked going to that college, but sometimes I feel like they failed me…I really do.

Laney related: “I did graduate finally, but…um…the degree hasn’t done me much good.

Still don’t have a job”. Savannah was placed in a position in her degree specialty after

graduation, but indicated that her academic experience at the for-profit college may not

have adequately prepared her for the workplace:

I actually got a job after I graduated. It was at the place where I did my externship…the career service lady set it up for me. After I got started, they kept saying I needed more training…but it was stuff I supposedly should have learned at school. So basically I had to relearn a lot.

When the researcher asked Savannah if she believed the degree program had been a

worthwhile investment for her money, Savannah continued:

Hmm…well, not really. They told me I would be making a good salary at my job, like $50,000-60,000 every year, but I’m barely making $20,000. So yeah, that is a big difference. I didn’t really research it much though. Anyway…you kind of set expectations to be making good money, then after graduation you realize it wasn’t what you thought it was going to be.

85

Kris, a graduate of a national for-profit college, attested to the value of her education by

noting that “it was a great experience for me. The business classes were timely, and I did

find work as retail floor manager. It worked out well for me and I have no complaints.”

Composite experience. The composite description of the perceived value of a

for-profit education was based on the experiences of study participants and showed a

division between currently enrolled students and alumni of for-profit colleges.

Participants who were current students believed that, although they were undertaking a

substantial amount of educational debt, program and instructor quality, attentiveness of

staff, and the expectation of easily converting an academic credential to gainful

employment in the workplace were indicative of the value of a for-profit education.

Alumni of for-profit schools reported a different markedly different reality. All of

the alumni revealed that they were either not employed, or were working in positions not

related to their degree specialty. Over half of these alumni indicated that they were

earning wages at or below poverty level, while having to pay back an exorbitant amount

of student loan debt. The alumni recalled having knowledgeable instructors and working

with attentive staff, but there were mixed feelings about program quality and career

services functions due to the inability to secure a position related to a degree.

Experience of admissions staff and faculty member. The role of for-profit

admissions representatives is to promote a program of study and discuss the future

benefits of obtaining a degree. Little thought is given to the actual career outcomes for

students after graduation. Sue reported:

Our job was to get students enrolled and in the system. In most cases, students were sitting in our offices with concrete plans to get a degree. They knew where they wanted to be at the end. For those that didn’t, we spent time discussing potential salaries based on Bureau of Labor Statistics data, and explaining the

86

benefits of attending college and how the knowledge and skills they received at school would make for a great career. We believed that would happen. Whether or not it did wasn’t the point. The career services folks were responsible for taking students to the next step after graduation.

As a faculty member at a for-profit college, Teresa did have an awareness that the value

of a for-profit education might not turn out to be what students had initially expected:

I keep up with a lot of my students after they graduate. Some of them will email me to check in every once-and-a-while, or we keep up with each other on Facebook. A lot of them are having problems getting work. I try to help students make connections with employers we work with. The job market where we are is not the greatest and competition for jobs is high. I imagine graduates from the community college and university are probably being selected over our graduates. It’s too bad…I feel we have great programs that get students ready to work. I just don’t think it’s happening for a lot of them.

Review of institutional websites. The career services webpages of University of

Phoenix, Midwest Technical Institute, and Walden University provided useful resources

for students on career-related topics, such as career exploration, resume writing, building

networks, and job search strategies. However, information about the ability of a

graduating student to find suitable employment in a chosen career field, or employment

data to indicate the number or percentage of graduates finding career-related positions,

were not clearly evident on the websites of the for-profit colleges consulted for this study.

Therefore, it was difficult to determine if the experiences of the study participants, over

half of whom did not find employment in an area related to their degree, reflected the

majority of a larger population of for-profit students in general.

This section addressed the research question for this study: What is the student

experience at a for-profit college? The theme emerged as a response to the researcher’s

inquiry about the perceived value of a for-profit college education. The majority of

participants who were current students believed that their future degree will have value,

and were hopeful that they will transition to a well-paid job in the workforce after

87

graduation. This was in stark contrast to the participants who had already graduated; in

almost each instance, the participant indicated that they either had difficulty in finding

work in their degree field, or were not earning the expected rate of pay communicated to

them by the college. Despite reporting a mostly positive experience while enrolled, the

perceived value of a for-profit education, as a whole, was not good. The post-graduation

experience of the majority of alumni in this study indicated that the expectations fostered

by their for-profit institution, for a lucrative and satisfying career in their field of study,

were not realized. Several participants reported working in a position not associated with

their degree, and earning a salary that was well below what was discussed during

enrollment at their respective institutions. Two of the participants reported earning

wages that were at, or below, the national poverty level, yet were paying back student

loans in excess of $50,000. Additionally, one participant alluded to the possibility of

seeking legal remedy for fraud; stating that the program the college advertised was not

what the participant experienced while enrolled, the cost of attendance was excessive,

and the participant did not receive assistance with locating work as promised by the

institution. The experiences related by the admissions staff member and one of the

faculty with regard to the ability of students to find work in their field of study after

graduation largely supported both the literature and experiences related by the study

participants. The institutional websites promoted the benefits of a college education, and

provided career-related resources, but post-graduation job data was not clearly evident.

Motivation and Choice. With an abundance of traditional colleges and

universities in the postsecondary market, why do students choose to attend for-profit

institutions? “My parents thought the college would be good place to start because it was

88

close to home”, Sydney stated, adding “I was able to save money…or so I thought…by

living at home for a couple of years.” Laura chose a for-profit college because of the

program and its length: “They had graphic design classes that caught my eye and it

[program] was shorter than at the university…plus they had night classes and I could fit

those in around work.” Savannah noted a similar experience: “I wanted to become an

MA [Medical Assistant] and it would only take 18 months. I also liked how the people at

the college were so friendly.” Joe mentioned that he selected a for-profit institution

because

It was online and I wasn’t interested in going to class or sitting in a classroom with a hundred other people. I didn’t have great grades in high school and had a rough time getting accepted into the university anyway. It was my only real option for getting a degree.

When asked why she chose a for-profit college, Charlotte remarked:

Well, to be perfectly honest, I actually thought I was going to a regular college. I had no idea what a for-profit college was until I saw news stories on [the college]. It makes sense now. But, anyway…I picked the college because I liked the atmosphere there and it seemed I could fit in as an older student.

Louise related a similar experience:

I had no idea what kind of college I was going to…you know? I picked this college because I wanted to get the degree and I liked that we could work on the job [externship] while in school to learn more and get experience.

Laney explained her motivation for attending a for-profit college: “They told me I could

get both a degree and a job, so I signed up”, and when asked what motivated her to attend

a for-profit college, Kelsey replied: “I wanted to get a degree so I could get a good job

and support my family.” Kris remembered:

I had gone to the community college for a year, and liked it, but it seemed like I was taking a lot of classes I really didn’t need…like creative writing and literature. So I went to [for-profit college] to check out their courses. I liked that I could just take classes that interested me and all went toward my degree. So I

89

switched and graduated not too long ago. It seemed like a good choice to me because I finished up sooner.

Lastly, Janie noted: “I kind of knew it [the college] was different from the university, but

that really didn’t matter to me. The staff told me the degree is the same, no matter where

I go. A degree is a degree, right?”

Composite description. Most of the participants were not aware that the colleges

in which they were enrolling were considered “for-profit”; to many, a for-profit

institution was the same as a community college or university, but did not have some of

the same barriers to entry, such as placement tests or prerequisite requirements. The

motivating factors in the selection of a for-profit college were varied:

Convenience (proximity, availability of services, flexible scheduling)

Type of program

Length of program

Friendly and attentive staff

Online degree options

Externship, or on-the-job experience

Lack of general education requirements

Quality of faculty

Among the study participants the main guiding factor for choosing a for-profit college

was to support a family and provide a better life for them, or to be a positive role model

for children.

Experience of an admissions staff member. By virtue of the position, admissions

personnel have access to information on student motivation and rationale for choosing a

90

for-profit college. In her work with enrolling students, and getting to know them, Sue

noted there were many reasons why students chose for-profit education:

Some students were not able to enroll at a community college or university. Either their grades were not good or they were not able to score high enough on placement tests. So they came to us. Most of our students were older and did not have a job, or maybe had an underpaying job, and wanted to get a fresh start in a new career. We had a lot of single parents and female students who needed the additional income a degree would bring - in order to support a family. I had students tell me they enrolled because they wanted something with a career focus, or that our programs were short and would get them into a job quickly. A few came in the door because we were the closer than other colleges, or they saw an ad on TV. But I think if I had to nail down a couple of the main reasons students enrolled, it would be that they wanted to do it for their families or themselves and to earn a better living. It’s really as simple as that.

Review of institutional websites. Information on the factors influencing a

student’s decision to attend a particular for-profit institution generally cannot be found on

the company website; however, marketing and promotional strategies are significant in

creating a desire to request additional information about the college, or to actually enroll

in a program of study. Three websites of for-profit colleges - University of Phoenix,

Walden University, and Midwest Technical Institute – all used similar marketing

strategies. The landing pages on the Walden University and MTI websites featured

women or minorities, and the University of Phoenix website featured a popular African

American football player from the National Football League. The purpose of these

images was to appeal to specific populations of students. Information about the career-

focused programs at each institution, the benefits of attending, and testimonials from

former students, were communicated to potential enrollees through various forms of

interactive multimedia. Access to forms to request information, or to enroll, were readily

available.

91

Insights provided by the participants on the choice of a for-profit college helped

to clarify their motivation to attend. Participants reported not knowing what a for-profit

college was, and data indicated that participants were generally unaware that the college

they were attending was a for-profit institution. The motivation to attend a for-profit

college was largely based on several factors; proximity and convenience, recruitment

efforts of the college, availability of a program of study, length of program, interaction

with staff and faculty, online course options, and appeal to the nontraditional student.

Recruitment efforts, location and close proximity, and length of program emerged as the

main factors driving the motivation to enroll at a for-profit college; participants indicated

that convenience and the ability to obtain a degree quickly played a significant role in

their college choice. These motivating factors influencing the choice to attend a for-

profit college were affirmed by information derived from the experience of an admissions

representative. It was evident, upon review the websites of several for-profit college

websites, that the career-focused training and degree programs were targeted at specific

student populations. The high level of customer service provided, and interactions with

staff and faculty, also made a positive impression on most of the participants in this

study, both pre- and post-enrollment, and was a compelling factor in both choice and

motivation to attend.

Evaluation of Findings

A strong relationship exists between student satisfaction and the intent to persist;

effectiveness of institutional services and students’ experience are strong predictors of

student satisfaction (Edens, 2012; Smith, 2015). This study uncovered five main themes

derived from lived experiences shared by eleven undergraduate students who attend, or

92

have attended, for-profit colleges: High level of customer service, positive interaction

with teachers and peers, cost of attending a for-profit college, perceived value of a for-

profit education, and motivation and choice. Awareness of the influence of these factors

on student retention and persistence requires knowledge of students’ lived experiences as

they progress to the completion of a degree. Data from all eleven participants constituted

the five themes making up the composite description of the students’ lived experience at

for-profit colleges. These themes correlated with several existing studies on for-profit

education.

Customer service as student service. Student support services at for-profit

colleges have been compared to customer service functions in the business environment

(Bailey, Badway, & Gumport, 2012; Deming et al., 2012; Dundon, 2015; Hagelskamp et

al., 2014; Howard-Vital, 2006; Kinser, 2006b; Noaman, 2011, Schade, 2014). Student

services support the overall mission of for-profit institutions, which is revenue-driven,

focused on career development, dependent on the ability of the institution to facilitate

progress to employment. The development of employable skills is favored over student

development, which is the more humanistic approach taken in traditional student affairs

work (Kinser, 2006b). Student service functions are the central core of for-profit

institutions, and students are made to feel they are the center of attention; student

satisfaction is essential. The availability of staff, convenience of services, and focused

attention on the student-customer have been mentioned in several articles (Berg, 2005;

Deil-Amen & Rosenbaum, 2003; Hagelskamp et al., 2014; Kelly 2001; Kinser, 2006b;

Ruch, 2001), and this supports the experiences recalled by the participants of this study; it

was the foremost theme to arise from the participant data.

93

Participants in this study reported a satisfactory experience with the staff

interactions at the institution, at least during matriculation and onboarding, and again

later in interactions with faculty members in their respective degree programs. Howard-

Vital (2006) found that students preferred for-profit colleges, and were more satisfied

with them, because they felt the staff at the institution cared about them as a person, and

were willing to take care of everything in behalf of the student. The collective experience

of the participants in this study supported Howard-Vital’s observations; participants

genuinely believed that student services staff, administration, support staff, and faculty

cared about them, as individuals, and in helping to further their career aspirations. The

experience of the admissions staff member affirmed the collective experience of study

participants: admissions personnel did demonstrate care and concern for students;

however, the student-customer services was likened to what might be found at a car

dealership.

Noel (1985) concluded that institutional staff or faculty that come in contact with

students on a regular basis can provide positive growth experiences for students that

enable them to identify their goals and talents; it is the caring attitude of college

personnel that is viewed as the most potent retention force on a campus. This was

especially apparent as participants related their experiences before and during enrollment;

the friendly staff, meeting administrators, campus tour, assistance with completing

paperwork, advising, counseling, receiving promotional items, and the overall

environment of the college. Participants remembered having admissions staff members

present a portfolio of degree and certificate programs, and develop an individual plan of

study. The information on the websites of several for-profit colleges affirmed that

94

student-customer service personnel were key to assisting students from entry into college

to graduation, a common element described in the collective experiences of the study

participants, and reported in the literature.

Many of the participants felt that the constant communications from the college,

via email and phone calls (Kinser, 2006b), was evidence that the college staff cared

enough to check in with them on a regular basis; in fact, when attendance was an issue, a

few remembered that the college staff attempted to contact them in various ways to offer

assistance. Alternatively, several participants reported feeling pressured to enroll, and

received daily or weekly phone calls and emails from college admissions staff to follow-

up; the message that “time was running out”, “your program is starting soon”, or

“financial aid is available” were communicated most frequently. High-pressure sales

strategies are frequently employed by many for-profit institutions and were reported in

the literature (Deming et al., 2012; Kinser, 2006a; Kutz, 2010; National Association for

College Admission Counseling, 2016; U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education,

Labor, and Pensions, 2012). One participant, who mentioned that she was a convicted

felon, was told by the admissions personnel at a for-profit institution that she would

easily find work in the medical field, with the help of its career services department, if

she enrolled and got started taking classes that day. The student did enroll, and

eventually completed a medical assistant degree, but failed to find work in her chosen

field of study due to the criminal background.

Participants expressed satisfaction with the availability and convenience of

services and programs, which is supported in the literature (Deil-Amen & Rosenbaum,

2003; Kelly, 2001, Kinser, 2006b). All of the participants were nontraditional students

95

and the flexible course schedule and availability of services after business hours were

mentioned as a positive aspect of the college experience, taking into consideration work-

family-life situations. Several of the participants took online courses, and most used an

institution’s web-based services to receive help and assistance.

Interactions with staff, faculty, and peers. The interactions of participants with

staff, faculty, and peers at their respective for-profit institutions correspond with the

theoretical and conceptual frameworks of this study. Astin’s student development theory

(1984), as well his other studies on persistence and retention (1977, 1993), indicated that

persistence is directly related to the level and quality of interactions of students with their

peers, faculty, and staff. Other studies in the literature (Pascarella, 1985; Pascarella &

Terenzini, 1976, 1979; Terenzini & Pascarella, 1991, 1994; Tinto, 1988, 1990, 1997,

2004; Tinto & Goodsell, 1993; Tinto & Pusser, 2006) suggested that students will have

persistence issues due to poor integration into the college community, isolation,

uncertainty, adjustment problems, academic difficulty, and a lack of clearly defined

academic and career goals. Students who made connections with staff members,

instructors, and peers, and were integrated into the college community, were more likely

to persist in a program of study. Rendon (1995) emphasized that retention can be

positively influenced by enhancing student interaction with campus personnel. In her

study, Rendon found that two crucial factors exist in a student’s decision to remain

enrolled until the completion of a program: 1) making positive connections with college

personnel during their first term of enrollment, and 2) successfully transitioning to

college through comprehensive orientation and advisement programs.

96

Student-staff interactions. Six of the participants in this sample successfully

graduated from a for-profit college, and based on the testimony of their collective

experience at these institutions, the interactions with staff and faculty, and to a lesser

extent, peers, were largely responsible for enabling them to complete a program of study.

Involvement by institutional staff, faculty, and administration throughout the student

academic lifecycle is a hallmark of retention models at most for-profit colleges. This was

evidenced by the descriptions of the lived experiences of the participants of this study;

involvement by staff began at matriculation, as participants were taken through a series of

steps that led to enrollment in a program. Once enrolled, participants were assigned an

advisor and an admissions staff member, in many instances, who would follow the

student throughout his or her collegiate lifecycle. These individuals interacted with

students during the duration of their programs of study and served as the main source of

communication from the institution. The company websites of several for-profit colleges

substantiated the experiences related by the study participants; Walden University (n.d.)

and University of Phoenix (n.d.) websites described “graduation teams” or “personal

advisors” composed of personnel from various institutional departments who would assist

students throughout the duration of their programs. If a student was at-risk due to

attendance, academic, or financial issues, and in danger of withdrawing, the admissions

representative or advisor would immediately be in contact with the student to resolve the

issue. These interactions with students align with Kinser’s (2006b) principle that student

affairs personnel at for-profit colleges are responsible for helping students matriculate,

stay enrolled, and graduate.

97

Student-faculty interactions. Faculty members had a significant role in student

interaction based on the collective experience described by participants. Kinser (2006b)

noted that faculty at for-profit institutions are not only hired to teach in a subject area, but

are trained and expected to assume additional responsibilities such as advising,

counseling, and interventions with at-risk students. This was confirmed by the

experiences related by both faculty members from for-profit colleges and study

participants. In several instances, participants reported that faculty members would

provide financial aid guidance, counseling, and advice on career pathways, in addition to

teaching. Faculty members would also assist with providing a ride home from school,

money for gas or food, or references for childcare. For many students at for-profit

colleges, the classroom may be the only place where involvement may arise; students

who interact with faculty members and peers tend to develop a support network and are

more likely to persist in classes (Pascarella and Terenzini, 1979; Tinto, Russon, &

Stephanie, 1994). In addition, faculty can intervene by taking an active interest and

affirming students as being capable of doing academic work while at the same

encouraging them to obtain assistance and become involved (Saret, n.d.). The collective

experience of student interactions with for-profit faculty members was highly positive;

participants held their instructors in high regard and communicated that they were

successful in their courses, and in some cases, programs, due to the relationship with a

teacher. This coincides with the literature and framework of this study which stated that

students must make a connection with their instructors to be successful in school, persist

in a program of study, and graduate (Astin, 1984; Kinser, 2006b; Pascarella & Terenzini,

1976, 1979, 1991, 1994; Tinto, 1988, 1990, 1997, 2004; Tinto & Goodsell, 1993; Tinto &

98

Pusser, 2006). In his theory on student involvement (1984), Astin suggested that frequent

interactions with faculty were more strongly related to a student’s satisfaction with

college, than any other type of involvement, or institutional or student characteristic.

Astin (1984) recommended that colleges find ways to increase student involvement with

faculty to enhance overall satisfaction with the institutional experience; in doing so,

institutions would increase retention and enable students to persist to completion of a

program of study. Pascarella and Terenzini (1979) emphasized the importance of faculty

involvement in college student persistence and affirmed that interaction between students

and faculty can foster interpersonal links between the student and institution, resulting in

increased commitment to the institution and an increased likelihood of persistence (p.

214).

Student-peer interactions. Participants in this study were nontraditional students

attending for-profit commuter colleges. Most of these students indicated that they had

work-life obligations in addition to the college courses they were taking, and the

likelihood of attending a school event afterhours was prohibitive. Despite significant

interactions with staff and faculty members at for-profit colleges, participants reported

that they did not develop strong friendships with fellow classmates in many cases; peers

were often considered colleagues or connections in a career network. Part of this might

be attributed to the age of the population in the study sample; the median age of study

participants was 37, indicating a largely nontraditional group of students. Astin (1977,

1993) pointed out that older (nontraditional) students were more likely to interact with

faculty members than peers, be heavily involved in their academic work, and tended to be

focused on work-life obligations. Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) asserted that part of

99

the impact of college is determined by the extent of a student’s interactions with faculty

members and peers, and Astin (1993) affirmed that peers are the single most important

direct source of influence on every aspect of development—behavioral, psychological,

and affective. Student interaction with peers can have a positive influence on overall

self-esteem, academic development, analytical and problem-solving skills, and

knowledge acquisition, and institutions with high levels of student interactions have

increased student achievement (Kuh, 1995; Pascarella, 1985; Passarella & Terenzini,

1976, 1979, 1991; Reason, Terenzini, & Domingo, 2005; Tinto, 1990).

Although participants reported making some friendships with peers, the overall

experience communicated to the researcher was that most were in college for the purpose

of obtaining career credentials, not to socialize or develop life-long friendships.

Additionally, many for-profit schools promoted academics as professional training, and

created a business-like environment for students to learn in. Study participants reported

that actual workplaces were often replicated; for example, medical assistant students

practiced techniques in an examination room setting, and auto repair students learned

their craft in garage-like setting equipped with tools and diagnostic instruments. Some

participants were encouraged to dress professionally, as though on-the-job, and treat each

other as members of a workplace team. Despite this career-driven environment,

however, study participants recalled belonging to clubs or participating in student study

groups, and often their respective colleges would host student activities and events, such

as picnics and luncheons, which gave students an occasion to socialize outside the

classroom and develop stronger connections with their peers. This was supported in the

literature; for-profit colleges commonly have academic or career-specific student groups

100

to enhance the campus life experience and drive retention, such as student clubs,

athletics, and residential facilities (Bailey et al., 2003; Kelly, 2001; Kinser, 2005), yet the

mission of most for-profit colleges is to provide academic support for students, rather

than to engage them in social activities.

Cost of attending and student loan concerns. Institutions in the for-profit

sector tend to be costlier than colleges and universities in other sectors and are well-

documented in the literature (Bailey et al. 2001; Bennett et al. 2010; Deming et al., 2012,

2013; Dundon, 2015; Hagelskamp et al., 2014; Kelly, 2001, Kinser, 2005, NCES, 2015,

Schade, 2014; U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, 2012).

In comparison with non-profit or state institutions, the cost of attending a for-profit

institution is significantly higher; for example, Schade (2014) noted that tuition at two-

year for-profit institutions was as much as five times higher than at state schools (p. 328).

As a result, the higher tuition and fees associated with a for-profit education often places

a heavy financial burden on students who attend these institutions.

For-profit colleges tend to enroll a high number of nontraditional students from a

largely minority, female, and single-parent student demographic that is vulnerable to

taking on exorbitant amounts of student loan debt to attend college and obtain a degree

(Deming, 2012, 2013; Schade, 2014; U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education,

Labor, and Pensions, 2012; Zamani-Gallaher, 2004). The student population in this

sample closely aligned with the for-profit student demographic reported data in the

literature; ten of the eleven participants were female, eight had dependents, and three

self-reported that they were unemployed. Additionally, two of the participants indicated

that they were nearly homeless, and currently living with friends and relatives, and one

101

participant self-reported being a convicted felon. All participants in this sample were

considered nontraditional: twenty-five years or older, attending college part-time,

employed, and financially independent (NCES, 2015; Pelletier, 2010).

Hagelskamp et al. (2014) reported that almost sixty-five percent of for-profit

students considered their institutions expensive. The experience related by study

participants suggested that they were not always aware of the tuition, fees, and other

charges associated with attending an institution, at least not initially. At least two of the

participants believed they were deceived by their respective institutions because tuition,

fees, and other charges were not fully disclosed. Other participants related that they were

unaware of the cost of attendance; either they did not think to ask during the enrollment

process, or it was never discussed. This should not necessarily be interpreted as a

deceptive practice on the part of an institution; several of the participants reported that

they were provided with a myriad of resources: information, forms to be completed, and

questions to answer during the enrollment process. This experience aligned with the data

provided by the admissions representative, who noted that she always provided tuition

and fee information to students during the enrollment process. Furthermore, tuition and

fee information was communicated on the websites of several for-profit colleges, at

which one or more of the study participants attended. Many of the participants

acknowledged receiving assistance with completing enrollment forms and financial aid

paperwork, and admitted they may not have fully comprehended the costs associated with

attending the institution during meetings with admissions personnel. It was only after

they received a payment invoice from the college, or a communication from the student

loan provider, that they realized the extent of the charges or the debt being incurred.

102

Still, many of the participants overlooked the cost of attending college due to the fact that

tuition, fees, and charges were covered by student loans and, therefore, not an immediate

concern. Participants were also motivated by the expectation of securing a high paying

job after graduation, and having the ability to pay student loans back in a timely manner.

Yet, despite the cost of a for-profit education, Bailey, Badway, and Gumport

(2001) found that students were generally satisfied with the quality of their instructors,

advisors, and tutors, as well as the structure and efficiency of their programs. This was

confirmed by the study participants who reported similar experiences; these students

were generally satisfied with faculty, staff, services at the institution, and their program

of study. The data from participants revealed that admissions personnel, financial aid

staff members, advisors, and other student-customer service personnel were a motivating

factor in the enrollment and onboarding process; students were impressed by the friendly

and accommodating behaviors exhibited by student services personnel and

administrators.

Financial aid concerns. Numerous studies exist in the literature related to federal

student financial aid and the for-profit sector (Bennett et al., 2010; Deming, 2012, 2013;

Dundon, 2015; Hagelskamp et al., 2014; Kelly, 2001; Mitchell, 2016; Schade, 2014; U.S.

Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, 2012; Yeoman, 2011;

Zamani-Gallaher, 2004). A report from the National Center for Education Statistics

(2015) indicated that almost 90% of undergraduate students at four-year for-profit

colleges received financial aid during the 2008-2014 academic years. This is supported

by the current study in which ten of eleven participants (91%) received financial aid

while attending college.

103

In their study, Hagelskamp et al. (2014) reported that 70% of for-profit students

took out loans to pay for college, and about 50% worried about taking on too much debt.

These data align with the experiences of the study participants; each of the students in the

sample took out student loans for their education, and all of them expressed concern

about the amount of debt they would have to pay back. Over half of the participants of

the current study revealed that they believed they had no choice but to apply for and

receive student loans, and most indicated that their financial situation would have

precluded attending college had they not received federal aid. Less than half of the

participants recalled being aware of the amount of debt they incurred for a college

credential. Other participants reported being surprised or angry about the number student

loans and amount of student loan debt. Data derived from the interviews for this study

seemed to indicate that participants may not have received information about alternative

options for paying tuition and fees during the enrollment process. Many of the study

participants reported completing the FAFSA and financial aid forms, but there was

confusion as to the cost of tuition and fees, amount being financed, and availability of

grants and scholarships. Two of the participants believed they were receiving federal

student aid, but discovered that their degree program was financed through a third-party

associated with the institution.

Value of a for-profit credential. Gainful employment data, and the ability of a

student to find employment with high earning prospects, were frequently utilized as

measures of the value of a for-profit education in the literature (Bennett et al., 2010;

Cellini & Chaudhary, 2014; Deming, 2012, 2013; Guida & Figuli, 2012; MacQueen,

2012; Stamps, 1998). There were relatively few studies in the literature which examined

104

the value of a for-profit credential from the experience and perspective of for-profit

students. In one such study, Hagelskamp et al. (2014) found that about eighty percent of

current students were optimistic that completing their degree would improve their

chances of finding a job and earning a good income. This was affirmed in the current

study: Four of the five participants attending college at the time of this study expressed

feelings of hopefulness and anticipation that they would graduate and secure employment

in a career that would provide work-life stability and a means to live well. The drive to

obtain a college credential and secure stable employment was a strong motivator for most

of the study participants, and a contributing factor in their continued persistence in a

program of study. Of the five participants attending a for-profit institution, four reported

that they felt they “needed” to complete a degree to get a good paying job to support a

family, buy a car, or to find a suitable place to live. Many of those participants reported

that they were not currently employed, were employed part-time, or had a position that

paid low wages, and that they wanted “something better” for themselves and their

families.

The responses from alumni of for-profit colleges were more telling of the reality

of a for-profit credential; about thirty-seven percent felt that their degree was worth it,

and thirty-two percent believed it was not (Hagelskamp et al., 2014). A more

discouraging fact was that, for students graduating before 2012, seventy percent did not

believe their degree was worthwhile (Hagelskamp et al., 2014). Hagelskamp et al. (2014)

found that many of the for-profit graduates blamed their schools for not preparing them

adequately for the job market, and that these schools did a poor job of teaching them

knowledge and skills that are needed in the workplace. Of the six study participants who

105

had graduated from a for-profit college, only one indicated that she felt the degree she

received was worthwhile. The other participants expressed discontent with their

academic credentials for a variety of reasons, namely: 1) the education and training

received did not adequately prepare the student for work; 2) entry-level positions did not

pay enough to cover student loan payments; 3) transferability of credits to other colleges

was prohibitive, and 4) some employers did not recognize the credential as being valid.

These for-profit alumni revealed that although they enjoyed interacting with staff and

working with faculty while enrolled, they also believed that their degree would lead to a

lucrative job in a chosen career. The reality was a disheartening experience for most of

the alumni in this study; four of the six participants did not find work in a career field,

and in a couple of instances, participants were forced to take positions in retail or food

service. After graduating, four of the alumni reported that they had contacted the career

services department at their institutions to obtain job leads and either did not receive

assistance, or the level of assistance was poor. Although the websites of several for-

profit colleges described the career-related services offered, such as resume writing, job

search tips, and interview assistance, there was no employment data available that would

indicate that graduating students were finding work in their career field. One participant

noted that she felt abandoned after graduating; that the college no longer saw her as an

“important person”, and another remarked that her impression was that once there was no

more money coming in, the college staff no longer had an interest in helping her find a

job.

Choosing a for-profit college. The reasons why potential students choose for-

profit colleges has not been addressed extensively in the literature, particularly from a

106

qualitative perspective, and most studies related to college choice as it applies to students

attending traditional colleges and universities (Bers & Smith, 1987; Cabrera & LaNasa,

2000; Chapman, 1986; Manski & Wise, 1983; St. John & Starkey, 1995; Tumblin, 2002).

Of the studies that focused on for-profit students, choice was mainly influenced by

gender, socioeconomic status, ability to enter the job market quickly, marketing and

recruitment efforts of the institution, nontraditional designation, convenience and

location, and flexible courses and schedules (Apling, 1993; Bailey et al., 2001; Chung,

2012; Diel-Amen & Rosenbaum, 2003; Holland, 2012; Iloh & Tierney, 2013; Oseguera

et al., 2011).

The socioeconomic background of the study participants affirmed many of the

findings of previous studies (Apling, 1993; Deming et al., 2013). The student population

in this sample was nontraditional, and all but one of the participants were female. The

median income household income level was $20,000 to $29,999, and ten of the eleven

participants reported having dependents. This placed many of the study participants at or

below poverty level as determined by the U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services (2016). Eight of the participants were first-generation students.

In choosing a college to attend, study participants reported that location played a

significant role; the proximity of the college to their home, or the ability to take online

courses, were cited as reasons for choosing a for-profit college, as were the convenience

of flexible hours, availability of courses after business hours, and web-based services.

The type of the program offered was mentioned by over half of the study participants as a

reason to attend a for-profit institution. Auto repair, HVAC, medical assisting, computer

networking, and general business programs, often a staple at for-profit colleges, were

107

favored among the participants, who preferred career-oriented programs that did not often

include general education credit requirements. The experiences related by study

participants was substantiated by information received from the admissions staff member,

who reported that students she enrolled often had similar reasons for enrolling at the for-

profit college.

Marketing and recruitment efforts of the college was another factor the

participants acknowledged as having influenced their decision to attend a for-profit

school. In some instances, programs were marketed as a “fast track” to a lucrative career,

and recruiters conveyed to participants that programs could be completed in a matter of a

few months, rather than years. The websites of several for-profit colleges consulted for

this study illustrated this concept well; the images, multimedia presentations, textual

content, and testimonials served to market the career-focused programs at these

institutions and were aimed at target populations such as nontraditional students, females,

and minority groups.

The high pressure recruiting strategies mentioned in the literature (e.g., Deming et

al., 2012; Kinser, 2006a; Kutz, 2010; National Association for College Admission

Counseling, 2016; U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,

2012) were of concern to only two participants, who recalled that they felt pressured to

make a decision to enroll. The ability to earn an academic credential, and enter the

workforce quickly, made the decision to attend a for-profit college appealing to study

participants.

The lived experiences related by nine of the eleven participants revealed that

interactions with student-customer service personnel at for-profit institutions

108

tremendously influenced their decision to enroll at a college. The availability of staff to

answer questions and provide assistance and support was mentioned, as was the behavior

of staff members who made participants feel special, and who, in the minds of

participants, appeared to take a genuine interest in the student and his or her academic

success. The attention paid to the student, and the targeted matriculation process

whereby participants received direct assistance from a staff member at each stage, were

largely responsible for satisfaction with the experience and eventual enrollment at an

institution. Participants reported that they did not have to navigate the complicated

admissions and enrollment stages on their own; through the assistance of student-

customer service staff it was a seamless process that enabled participants to easily enroll

and begin taking classes without much effort.

Interactions with staff as a motivation to persist. The student-customer service

support extended beyond admissions and enrollment; admissions, financial aid, student

support, and advising personnel continued interactions with participants after onboarding

and as students moved into the academic stage of their program. It was at this point,

based on the experience related by the study participants, that interactions with faculty

and peers took on importance and were significant in a student’s motivation to persist in a

program of study at a for-profit college. Interactions with faculty members were

undoubtedly a strong motivator in persistence to the attainment of a degree, and were

mentioned frequently in conversations with study participants. The role of career

services staff was evident throughout the duration of a student’s academic career at a for-

profit institution; study participants recalled that they received career-related information

during enrollment, and there were opportunities to interact with career services personnel

109

during the academic portion of a participant’s program to obtain job leads, and attend

meetings and workshops to learn more about job search, interviewing, and resume

writing. The career focus of the for-profit institution was often included in the

curriculum as well; participants remembered listening to guest speakers from the field,

taking trips to businesses related to their field of study, shadowing professionals in their

program, completing assignments with a career focus, and being required to participate in

an on-the-job externship. In many cases, career services personnel assisted participants

with securing a position prior to, or after, graduation.

The availability of federal student financial aid was not cited by study participants

as rationale for choosing to attend a for-profit college; several reported not being aware

of financial aid options prior to enrollment. Over half of the study participants related

that once they began receiving student loan disbursements, and after using the funds to

pay for living expenses, they felt compelled to remain in a program. The cost of tuition

and fees was not mentioned as a factor for many of the study participants, either, at least

at the outset: It only became an issue as participants began to realize the amount of debt

they were incurring as the program of study progressed.

Experience of staff and faculty at for-profit colleges. By virtue of their

positions, staff and faculty at for-profit colleges have a unique perspective on the student

experience. To develop a deeper understanding of the student experience at for-profit

colleges, the researcher sought input from student affairs personnel and faculty members

who were employed at these institutions. Three individuals responded: two faculty and

one admissions staff member. The recollections of the admissions staff member and the

faculty members helped to corroborate the descriptions of the lived experiences of the

110

study participants, albeit through a different lens. Student affairs personnel, and faculty

members in particular, have the most interaction with students and have a keen awareness

of the factors that influence student persistence. Although the information derived from

the experiences of three individuals who have worked in the for-profit sector cannot be

considered as substantial evidence to explain a phenomenon, it can be used as a

foundation for further research and analysis.

Information from for-profit college websites. Information and resources found

on the websites of several for-profit institutions were utilized to support the participant

descriptions. For-profit colleges enroll a large number of nontraditional, female, and

minority students (e.g., Apling, 1993; Deming et al., 2013; Kelly, 2001), therefore

marketing and recruitment efforts were targeted toward these student groups on the

institutional websites. In each instance the images, textual content, and other media on

the institutional websites served to market the colleges’ programs and services to a

female and minority demographic. It should be noted that the participants of this study

did not mention the college website as a factor influencing their decision to enroll, and it

is unknown whether participants accessed information and services via the websites.

Summary

The student service function at for-profit colleges, frequently referred to as

“customer service” in the literature, was a theme that emerged early and often in

conversations with participants. Substantial interactions with support staff before,

during, and after enrollment were experienced by all the participants in this study, and

supported by information provided by an admissions staff member. Although most

interactions were positive, several participants noted that customer service personnel

111

were sometimes persuasive and tenacious in nature, particularly during the initial inquiry,

through the enrollment process, in following up with attendance and tuition payments,

and after graduation to ensure student loan payments were being made in a timely

manner.

Interactions with faculty members, and in a lesser way with peers, was a

significant experience for the participants in this study. In every case, participants

reported a positive experience with faculty members that enhanced the learning

experience, and enabled many of the students to persist in a program of study. The

experiences communicated by two for-profit college faculty members illustrated the level

of care, concern, and commitment to the education and development of their students.

The cost of attending a for-profit institution correlated with the perceived value of a for-

profit education; the high cost of tuition and fees and the amount of student loan debt,

coupled with the inability to transfer to another college or in finding adequate

employment in the field of study, were mentioned as disadvantages to a for-profit

education. Finally, recruitment efforts by the college, proximity, and length of program

were the main factors driving choice and motivation to attend a for-profit institution

among the participants of this study.

112

Chapter 5: Conclusions, Implications, and Recommendations

Overview

For-profit colleges have received much attention in the literature regarding the

economic impact of cost associated with attending, growth of the for-profit sector,

student retention, marketing and recruiting practices, and value of a for-profit education

(e.g., Bailey et al., 2003; Bennett et al., 2010; Deming et al., 2012, 2013; Dundon, 2015;

Hagelskamp et al., 2014; Kelly, 2011; Kinser, 2005, 2006; Lee, 2012; Schade, 2014).

The demographic of the for-profit student population was identified (Deming et al., 2012;

Kelly, 2011; NCES, 2011, 2015) as being largely female, minority, and nontraditional

(Apling, 1993; Pelletier, 2010). This population of students, often low income, would

seek out career-based programs at for-profit institutions that would frequently be costly

(Bennett et al., 2010; Dundon, 2015; Hagelskamp et al., 2014; U.S. Senate Committee on

Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, 2012; Yeoman, 2011) and necessitate the receipt

of federal student financial aid, of which the default rate was high (e.g., Dundon, 2015;

Mitchell, 2016; Schade, 2014; Zamani-Gallaher, 2004). Several studies dealt with the

customer service aspect of the student services functions (Bailey, Badway & Gumport,

2003; Deming et al., 2013; Dundon, 2015; Kelly, 2011; Kinser, 2006). Although

research on factors that influence college choice have been addressed quantitatively

(Chung, 2012; Hagelskamp et al., 2014; Iloh & Tierney, 2014; Oseguera et al., 2011), a

qualitative approach which identifies the reasons students choose a for-profit college and

their experiences during enrollment, have not been adequately studied in the literature.

113

There were a multitude of studies in the literature related to student persistence at

two- and four-year public institutions (e.g., Adelman, 2006; Astin, 1984, 1993; Berger &

Milem, 2000; Cabrera et al., 2003; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, 2005; Rendon et al.,

2000; Terenzini & Reason, 2005, Tinto, 1975, 1987). These studies identified several

factors that influence persistence in a program of study, including availability of services

and support, size, curricular mission, institutional quality, interactions with staff and

faculty, peer influences, sociodemographic status, family relationships, academic

preparation, personal and social experiences, disposition, and academic and career goals.

Although for-profit student persistence was not adequately addressed in the

literature, a few reports (e.g., Bailey et al., 2001; Deming et al., 2012; Hagelskamp et al.,

2014) gave some insight into the reasons students choose to persist in a program of study

and graduate. However, the topic was not addressed in a comprehensive manner in all

cases. This study was conducted to develop a better understanding of the phenomena of

lived experiences of students attending for-profit institutions as they both choose a for-

profit institution and persist to completion in a program of study. The purpose was to fill

the gap in the existing literature and provide student services personnel and higher

education administrators with information to better inform their work with regard to

retention and persistence.

The findings of this study add to the existing literature by identifying factors that

influence student persistence in the for-profit sector, and by providing insight into the

retention methods and strategies of for-profit institutions. The findings support the

theoretical and conceptual framework for this study (Astin, 1984; Pascarella, 1985;

Pascarella & Terenzini, 1976, 1979; Terenzini & Pascarella, 1991, 1994; Tinto, 1975,

114

1988, 1990, 2004). Recommendations are offered to student services personnel,

instructors, and higher education administrators as a means of increasing awareness about

the lived experiences of students attending for-profit colleges so that retention and

persistence efforts can increase within both for-profit and public institutions.

The purpose of this qualitative, phenomenological study was to understand the

lived experiences of for-profit college students with regard to their choice of enrolling at

a for-profit institution and the reasons for persisting in a program of study. The sample

consisted of eleven participants from various for-profit institutions; six participants were

current undergraduate students, and five participants graduated with either a certificate or

associate-level degree from a for-profit school. Due to the long distance between the

researcher and the participants, which made face-to-face interviews prohibitive,

telephone or Skype interviews were conducted. An interview guide with open questions

was used for each participant interview. The data collection and analysis was conducted

using the modified Stevick-Colaizzi-Keen method, as discussed by Moustakas (1994), to

analyze phenomenological data. Audiotapes and transcripts, in combination with the

researcher’s notes, were used to document the participants’ shared experiences. To

ensure confidentiality, pseudonyms were assigned to each participant. The textural and

structural descriptions of the meanings of the experiences, and a composite description or

“essence” of the phenomena, were constructed. Quotations from the participant

narratives and a summation of the experiences were used to demonstrate the lived

experiences of the for-profit students with regard to institutional choice and factors

influencing persistence in a program of study.

115

IRB approval was obtained prior to collecting data for this study. A relatively

small sample size of 11 participants was a limitation in this study. The study also

reflected a largely female perspective as there were ten female participants and one male

participant. The purposeful sample technique used in this study included only

undergraduate students, which limited the diversity of entire for-profit student population,

and the use of telephone and Skype interviews might have introduced the risk of

collecting inaccurate data. Although the use of an interview guide and pre-interview

instructions, participant uncertainty and misinterpretation of information may have been a

limitation. The experiences, beliefs, presumptions of the researcher were also a potential

risk to the accuracy to the data. This study only focused on the experiences of

undergraduate students attending for-profit colleges; however, developing an

understanding of graduate student experiences would be useful as well.

Ethical issues were related to confidentiality and anonymity of the participants.

Confidentiality was ensured as the researcher was the only individual with access to

participant data, and anonymity concerns were addressed through the use of pseudonyms

instead of participant’s names in identifying audio recordings, transcripts, and researcher

notes.

This chapter will discuss the implications of the study, an evaluation of the

findings as they relate to the significance and purpose, and potential limitations to the

results of the study. Recommendations will be given for the practical application of the

results to the work of student services personnel, faculty, researchers, and higher

educational administrators. Recommendations for future research will be presented as

well.

116

Implications

The goal of this study was to develop an understanding of the lived experiences of

students attending for-profit institutions: the motivation for choosing an institution and

the factors influencing persistence in a program of study. The research questions for this

study were: 1) What motivates students to attend a for-profit institution; 2) What are the

students’ experiences during their enrollment at a for-profit college; and 3) What are

student perspectives of the student-customer service functions at the institution? Research

focused on college choice and factors influencing persistence (e.g., Astin, 1984; Chung,

2012; Hagelskamp et al., 2014; Iloh & Tierney, 2014; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1976,

1979; Tinto, 1975, 1998, 2004).

Qualitative, phenomenological research on the lived experiences of students

attending for-profit institutions as it applies to motivation to choose a for-profit institution

and persist in a program of study to completion was not discovered in the literature by the

researcher. This supported the rationale for the study. The phenomenological data

reported in this study can serve to initiate dialogue among institutional stakeholders, at

for-profit institutions in particular, about ways in which to improve institutional support

services and student persistence.

The following implications were developed from the five themes making up the

composite descriptions identified in the analysis of the data. The five themes included: 1)

student-customer services, 2) interaction with staff, faculty, and peers, 3) cost of

attending, 4) perceived value of the education received, and 5) rationale for choosing to

attend a for-profit institution. Each theme will be addressed individually.

117

Student-Customer Services

Conclusions drawn from the participant data for this study correspond with

research by Astin (1984, 1993), Howard-Vital (2006); Kelly (2001), and Kinser (2006b).

Kinser (2006b), in particular, noted that the student affairs function is the mission of most

for-profit colleges; students are considered customers of the institution, and student

support services are the responsibility of the entire organization. Staff, faculty, and

administration are active participants in the student’s academic life to ensure that students

remain productively engaged, and to facilitate completion (Kinser, 2006b). The majority

of the participants reported having satisfactory experiences with student services

personnel and the support services offered at a for-profit institution. Edens (2012)

suggested that satisfaction with the college experience results in increased persistence.

Participants felt that the high level of support received at enrollment and onboarding, and

later as they progressed through a program, was a key element in their success as a

student at a for-profit college. This confirmed Kinser’s (2006b) suggestion that the

fundamental role of student affairs personnel was to facilitate matriculation, ensure

retention in a program of study, and to help students graduate.

The interactivity between the study participants and the student services staff

members, coupled with the hands-on approach in helping the students navigate

enrollment and complete forms, assisting with financial aid applications, and providing

robust career-services functions, were identified as positive experiences by most of the

study participants. One for-profit college kept a stocked food bank to assist needy

students, as well as a clothes closet with professional clothing that could be used for job

interviews. Furthermore, study participants believed that the communications received

118

by student services support staff at various points during enrollment demonstrated care

and concern for the students’ wellbeing, which they believed to be indicative that

someone at the college had taken an interest in their achievement. This was affirmed by

Kinser (2006b) who found that student services personnel at for-profit colleges will not

wait for students to initiate contact, but will reach out to students in a variety of ways to

be in constant contact with them as a retention strategy.

Many for-profit colleges host activities and events to enable staff, faculty, and

administrators to interact with students, and study participant narratives confirmed this.

Kinser (2006) conceptualized these out-of-class experiences as ways in which for-profit

college promote involvement with staff, faculty, business partners, college

administrators, and college life in general. Tinto (1975) suggested that integration into

the academic and social life of the institution is necessary to effectively retain students,

and Astin (1984) cited increased involvement in college life and the resulting social

interactions as being essential in a student’s ability to persist. Likewise, Terenzini and

Pascarella (1994) noted that interpersonal, academic, and extracurricular involvements

are important to a student’s academic experience and achievement. One implication for

student services personnel and higher education administrators would be to increase the

level of interactivity with students to build connections with the institution and staff,

faculty, and peers to promote and develop student engagement. Additionally, a

communication plan could be developed to follow up with students at targeted points

during their time at the institution. These communications could take place via email,

social media, telephone call, or face-to-face interactions.

119

The availability of services, both on-campus and online, and during extended

hours and weekends, was noted in several participant narratives. Many for-profit

institutions devote significant resources and attention to providing services at the

convenience of students and online services are prevalent in the sector (Kinser, 2006).

Most of the study participants were nontraditional students with busy work-life

schedules, so the availability of services in an online format was preferred by

participants, over other methods, due to the convenience of these services after-hours and

on weekends. Therefore, the implication would be to expand services beyond regular

business hours and on weekends, and to provide online services, to better assist students

who have irregular hours.

Interaction with Faculty and Peers

Conclusions drawn from the participant data for this study correspond with prior

research (Astin, 1984; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1976, 1979; Terenzini & Pascarella, 1991,

1994; Tinto, 1998, 1990, 2004; Tinto & Pusser, 2006; Tinto et al., 1994). To remain

engaged in school and persist to graduation, students must make connections to staff,

faculty, and peers within the institution. Swail’s (2004) research found that the formation

of friendships with peers and the development of mentors and connections to faculty

members were important factors for student integration. In addition to the interaction

with staff members, the narratives of the study participants identified interaction with

faculty as the preeminent factor influencing their desire remain in college. The role of

faculty members extended beyond that of instructor in the classroom. For the majority of

study participants, faculty were mentors, advisors, and counselors who often helped

students through work-life-school challenges. In several cases, faculty members became

120

friends with the participants and connected with them outside of the classroom. Kinser

(2006) noted that faculty at many for-profit colleges are responsible not only for

instruction, but to ensure that students can be successful in college by helping address

student issues, assisting with the development of time management skills, and counseling

students on work and family conflicts. The composite experience of study participants’

interaction with faculty and peers and the heightened level of engagement and

satisfaction, appears to support Astin’s (1984) theory of student involvement which

identified student-faculty interaction as being a strong predictor of students’ satisfaction

with their college experience. Terenzini and Pascarella (1994) suggested that the impact

of the college experience depends on the extent of students' interactions with peers and

faculty members; in fact, a faculty member’s educational influence is significantly

enhanced when contact with students extends to out-of-class experiences. Furthermore,

academic and social integration are essential for student growth and development, and are

linked to improved educational outcomes (Terenzini & Pascarella, 1994).

Most of the study participants mentioned that social activities and events, even

though these may have been aligned with the career-focused mission of the college

(Kinser, 2006), were opportunities to interact with staff, faculty, and peers and viewed as

a positive experience. The implication for student support service personnel and higher

education administrators would be to provide additional opportunities to increase

academic and social interactions between students, staff, and faculty. This could be

accomplished by hosting several college-hosted activities, events, and out-of-class

experiences that bring students in contact with their peers, faculty, and staff over the

course the student academic lifecycle. An admissions staff member at one small for-

121

profit college, for example, described a series of events that took place during students’

time with the institution, at which attendance was mandatory for faculty and staff:

Welcome luncheon during orientation, in which new enrollees could meet other

students.

All-school picnics.

Thanksgiving and Christmas dinners hosted by faculty members.

“Halfway There” dinner and awards reception for students reaching the halfway

point in their program.

Opportunities to take part in career-based and personal finance workshops.

Clubs and student organizations.

Brown bag luncheons covering topics such as consumer credit counseling,

interviewing skills, and financial aid repayment options as students neared

graduation.

“Celebration Graduation” reception for graduating students.

This example appears to confirm Kinser’s (2006) observation that the out-of-class

experiences at most for-profit institutions are designed to support academic work and a

future career. The example also illustrates how one for-profit college provides frequent,

and often targeted, opportunities for students to interact with faculty, peers, and staff to

foster student engagement and improve retention and persistence rates. A final

implication, based on the conclusions drawn from participant experiences, would be to

increase interactions between faculty and peers via social media, email, or other formats

to provide points of contact during students’ enrollment. Most of the study participants

122

reported that the contacts with institutional personnel were important to their success and

achievement at the institution.

Cost of Attending

Conclusions drawn from the participant data for this study align with multiple

studies (Bennett et al., 2010; Dundon, 2015; Hagelskamp et al., 2014; Schade, 2014; U.S.

Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, 2012; Yeoman, 2011).

The cost of attending a for-profit college, and the resulting student loan debt, were

mentioned as areas of serious concern among the study participants. The majority of the

study participants reported not having knowledge, or a complete comprehension, of the

costs associated with attending the for-profit institution. Furthermore, the majority of

participants recalled not having an awareness of the origin of their student loans, or the

amount of debt incurred. Several of the participants felt compelled to apply for loans

through a college’s third party loan provider after receiving the maximum amount of

federal student loans. Although several studies (e.g., Deming et al, 2012, 2013; Dundon,

2015; Mitchell, 2016; Schade, 2014; Yeoman, 2011) have reported on the high cost of

attending a for-profit college, and deceptive practices of admissions and enrollment

departments at these institutions, particularly in failing to communicate cost of attendance

information or financial aid options, this was not clearly evident from the analysis of the

data obtained in this study.

The majority of the study participants recalled being quickly moved through the

admissions and enrollment process, and several of the participants reported being

overwhelmed with the amount of information provided, and the rapid succession of

completing forms, answering questions, meeting various staff members, and touring the

123

campus. This may have been a contributing factor in the perception that information

about tuition, fees, and other charges was not communicated at enrollment; however,

deceptive practices, in some cases, could not be entirely ruled out. The data from this

study indicated that a majority of the study participants believed there was a failure by

the school to communicate the total cost of attending college. The implication for student

services personnel and higher education administrators would be to ensure that

information about tuition, fees, and other charges are explicitly communicated not only at

enrollment, but as students transition into the academic part of their program as well.

This would create an awareness of the ongoing costs of attending the institution, and also

inform students of the amount of student loan debt being incurred.

The high cost of attending a for-profit college increases the likelihood that

students will need to take out loans to pay for their degree (Schade, 2014). This places a

heavy financial burden on students, who may not be able to pay back substantial student

loan debt. The composite experience of the study participants indicated that the cost of a

for-profit college education and the resulting student loan debt were concerning to them.

This affirms a study by Hagelskamp et al. (2014) which found that students and alumni of

for-profit colleges were very concerned with cost of college and the financial burden of

their education as it related to student loans. Over half of the study participants who are

alumni of for-profit colleges mentioned that they currently did not have the means to pay

back student loans, and were requesting forbearance or other means of relief. One

participant, a former ITT Tech graduate with over $100,000 in student loan debt, is

awaiting possible relief due to the recent closure of the school. A common theme among

these college graduates was an increased level of anxiety and stress as a result of the

124

financial burden of student loan debt. Considering that most of these participants have

not been able to find lucrative work related to their degree, the outlook for a successful

career and ability to pay back their student loans appears bleak. An implication for

potential students would be to carefully consider a variety of college options before

choosing an institution, and to compare programs, transferability of credits, and cost of

attendance before enrolling. Hagelskamp et al. (2014) found that for-profit students only

consider one school before enrolling and are not well-informed about their choices.

Research and forethought prior to making a decision about a college to attend will result

in better choices, improve chances for success, and help alleviate concerns related to cost

and future financial burden.

Value of a For-Profit Education

Conclusions drawn from the participant data for this study correspond closely

with research by Hagelskamp et al. (2014) on the perceived value of a for-profit

education. When asked to consider if the for-profit degree was worthwhile, the

composite experience of the study participants indicated a divergence between the

participants who were still attending a for-profit college and the alumni. The narratives

of the current for-profit students indicated that, as a whole, participants were satisfied

with their educational experience and were confident that the educational credential

received would facilitate a pathway to a lucrative career in the chosen career field.

Interactions with faculty members, length and perceived quality of a program, and small

class size were mentioned as valuable to the participants’ learning experience at for-profit

institutions. This supports the study by Hagelskamp et al. (2014) which reported similar

findings.

125

The perception of the quality and value of a for-profit education among study

participants, who were alumni of for-profit institutions, was different from their currently

enrolled peers. Although many recalled having positive interactions with teachers and

receiving hands-on assistance during their time at the institution, the value of a for-profit

education was equated with the amount of student loan debt incurred and an inability to

find gainful employment in a chosen career field. Although one alumnus was able to

convert an externship to a position in her field of study, the others were not so fortunate.

Several participants noted they were struggling with obtaining positions related to their

educational credential, and that the career services personnel at their former institution

were not providing adequate assistance in a job search. Recent media reports concerning

the for-profit sector, and the closures of for-profit institutions such as Corinthian Colleges

and ITT Tech, at which a few of the participants attended, has resulted in the perception

that the lack of employability in a chosen career might be linked to having an educational

credential from a for-profit college. The job market in the study participant’s location

may not support the type of educational credential received, although several participants

mentioned that both admissions and career services personnel at their institutions

informed them that future jobs would be available upon graduation. The implication for

career services personnel and higher education administrators would be to increase

interaction and communication with alumni of the institution to better support their

efforts in locating gainful employment, and to minimize the incidence of student loan

default. One way in which to improve career service offerings would be to create a web-

based “career center” on the company website, which provides job-related information,

links to current job postings, networking opportunities, and a direct means of contacting

126

career services personnel. Many of the study participants felt the college abandoned

them after graduation, with regard to interaction with career services personnel and the

attainment of gainful employment. Ongoing communication during the first year, post-

graduation, through email, newsletters, social media, or other formats, could be used to

keep new graduates apprised of employment and networking opportunities, resume and

interview assistance, and other career-based information.

Motivation and Choice

Conclusions drawn from the participant data for this study correspond with

(Chung, 2012; Bailey et al., 2003; Deming et al., 2013; Iloh & Tierney, 2014). The

choice of attending a for-profit college and the rationale underlying that choice has not

been studied extensively; however, Chung (2012) and Iloh and Tierney (2014) have

provided a foundation from which to evaluate this phenomenon. The majority of study

participants were females from low socioeconomic backgrounds, with incomes of less

than $25,000 annually, and all but one reported having dependents. Most would be

considered nontraditional (NCES, 2015; Pelletier, 2010). The participant narratives

identified a variety of reasons for choosing to attend a for-profit institution, mainly:

convenience, a hands-on approach to support services, availability of vocational-based

training programs, and the ability to complete a program quickly and find a good-paying

job to support a family. These findings affirm Chung’s (2012) quantitative study that

students from low income (under $25,000) families generally choose to attend for-profit

colleges. Chung (2012) also noted that proximity of a for-profit college to a student’s

home influenced the selection of an institution at which to enroll, and several study

participants revealed this to be the case.

127

Model of Interaction at For-Profit Institutions

Figure 1 demonstrates a model of persistence for for-profit institutions that

incorporates the persistence models of Tinto (1975, 1993) and Rovai (2003); faculty,

institution, and student interaction models of Astin (1983) and Pascarella and Terenzini

(1976, 1979); for-profit student affairs principles described by Kinser (2006b); and

research on the for-profit business model that aligns customer service with the mission of

student services work (Bailey et al., 2003; Deming et al., 2013; Kelly, 2001). The model

is divided into four components of interaction - pre-enrollment, entry, academics, and

completion – and the interactions taking place at each stage. Within this context, the

corresponding aspect of the for-profit business model is presented.

Pre-enrollment. Based on the descriptions of the lived experiences of study

participants, the interactions with an institution’s marketing materials, most commonly

via the company website, and their interactions with a college recruiter, strongly

influenced the decision to enroll at a for-profit college. Marketing and recruiting

practices of for-profit colleges have received much attention in the literature (Bennett et

al., 2010; Deming et al., 2012, 2013; Dundon, 2015, Kinser, 2006b). Schade (2014)

suggested that for-profit colleges target vulnerable populations such as low-income,

female, and minority students. The majority of study participants would fall into one of

those categories. Kirkham (2011) argued that minority and low-income students are

strategically targeted by marketing campaigns and recruitment efforts of for-profit

schools; advertisements on television and in print often feature female, black, or Hispanic

students, and will often include a testimonial or image of a minority or female student

achieving a degree or employment. This was observed on the company webpages

128

PRE-ENROLLMENT

Interaction with institutional marketing materials and electronic resources

Interaction with recruiters and student affairs staff

For-profit business model: Marketing and recruiting

Institutional website, print materials, and efforts of recruiters focus on quality career-

based programs, knowledgeable faculty, friendly and caring staff, convenience and

flexibility.

ENTRY

Friendly, personalized attention from student affairs staff

Hands-on approach during enrollment and onboarding

Communication in various formatsInstitutional integration

For-profit business model: Sales and presentation; customer serviceIdentification of, and rationalization for,

personal and professional needs and wants of students by student affairs staff; to sell

products and services.

ACADEMICS

Intrusive advisingMultiple points of contact by faculty and

staff to increase engagementSocial integration activities

Academic integrationInstitutional integration

Increased social, career, and academic support

For-profit business model: Customer service and career development

Expanded customer service role for faculty; career focused curriculum and activities;

continued institutional integration activities to increase engagement.

COMPLETION

Extensive interactions with career services staff

Continued interactions with facultyCommunication with completers and alumni

Individualized career assistance and job placement

For-profit business model:Closing the sale and follow-up

Graduation indicates the closing of a successful sale; expanded customer service

role for career services staff; successful placement and gainful employment benefits

the school and enhances future marketing and recruitment efforts.

Interaction

Figure 1. A model of persistence that incorporates the persistence models of Tinto (1975, 1993), Rovai (2003); faculty, institution, and student interaction models of Astin (1983) and Pascarella and Terenzini (1976, 1979); for-profit student affairs principles described by Kinser (2006b); and research on the for-profit business model that aligns customer service with the mission of student services work (Bailey et al., 2003; Deming et al., 2013; Kelly, 2001).

129

consulted for this study. However, Morial (2011) asserted that for-profit institutions give

minority, low-income, and nontraditional students an opportunity they would not have

otherwise. The narratives of the study participants indicated that marketing efforts via

websites and print materials were helpful, but it was the interaction with recruiters that

resulted in an eventual enrollment at a for-profit institution. The marketing and recruiting

strategies of the for-profit business model can be derived from the participant

descriptions and the experience of the admissions staff member, who was also a recruiter.

The information found on institutional websites, advertising and print materials, and the

efforts of college recruiters, were focused on the quality of the career-based programs,

knowledgeable faculty, friendly and caring staff, and the convenience and flexibility of a

for-profit education.

Entry. Upon entry at a for-profit college, student affairs staff and in some cases,

administrators, begin intensive interactions with students who are identified as customers

and who receive support from all organizational constituents (Kelly, 2001; Kinser,

2006b). As a student moves through the enrollment and onboarding process, they are

treated to a high level of customer service from friendly and caring staff members. This

was evident from the narratives of the study participants and the experience of the

admissions staff member. Personalized attention, hands-on assistance, and frequent

communication from various staff members were all noted as having a positive influence

on the student experience and overall initial satisfaction with the college. It was noted in

several studies (in particular, Dundon, 2015, Schade, 2014) that for-profit colleges place

a heavy emphasis on enrolling large numbers of student-customers, and the admissions

staff member likened the enrollment process at a for-profit college to the sales

130

department at a car dealership. Therefore, an inference could be made that the mission of

the student affairs function aligns with a for-profit business module that focuses on sales

of a product (academic program) to the customer (student) with a high degree of

customer service from staff members.

Academics. Once students complete the enrollment process, they enter the

academic stage of the student lifecycle. During this time, interaction with student affairs

staff continues; however, the interaction with faculty, advisors, and the institution take

precedence as a driver of retention. The descriptions provided by the study participants

indicated that interaction with faculty members had a considerable influence on

satisfaction with the college experience and achievement in a program of study. The

majority of participants also noted that opportunities to participate in college events and

out of class activities, even if for career-related purposes (Kinser, 2006b), were important

to their academic success. Advisors were readily available for support, and faculty

members provided assistance that went beyond instruction. Tinto (1975, 1993) suggested

that social and academic integration was essential in student retention, and research by

Astin (1983) and Pascarella and Terenzini (1976, 1979) indicated that student interaction

with faculty and the institution would increase the likelihood that students would be

satisfied and engaged with the college experience. In his research, Edens (2012)

suggested that engagement was directly related to persistence. The for-profit business

model follows with the idea of interaction by providing a heightened level of customer

service from faculty, staff, and administration, and hosting multiple opportunities for

students to participate in celebrations, career-related activities, out of class experiences,

and college events, to enable both social and institutional integration.

131

Completion. As students near graduation, and then afterwards, the career

services function of student affairs becomes more prominent. During this stage, students

have extensive interaction with the career services personnel to receive career-based

assistance, training, and support to enable alumni to locate gainful employment.

Although students still have some interaction with faculty, it is less pronounced, and most

interaction and communication comes from the career services office. Study participants

who are alumni of for-profit institutions reported that the career support function was the

least effective customer service at an institution; the level of support was not satisfactory

because most could not find work related to their academic credential. Additionally,

some of these alumni believed an institution were ignoring them because they were

finished with their program. This supports research by Hagelskamp et al. (2014) which

indicated similar findings among alumni of for-profit colleges. In the for-profit business

model, completion might be associated with closing a successful sale. There may be

points of contact with alumni, in some cases, to foster the payment of student loan debt

and prevent default on loans. In reality, a for-profit college no longer benefits from

staying in contact with alumni because the revenue from federal aid has ceased.

The model of persistence as it relates to interaction with the institution and its

constituents is presented as a synthesis of prior research on persistence and interaction,

and a merging of the composite descriptions of the lived experiences of students at for-

profit colleges. The model presents a pathway by which student affairs personnel and

higher education administrators at colleges and universities, and for-profit institutions in

particular, can increase retention and persistence by fostering interactions between

students, the institution, faculty, and staff. More research is needed, from either a

132

qualitative or quantitative perspective, to determine the impact of these interactions at

for-profit institutions.

Limitations

There were several limitations that could affect the findings of this study. The

first limitation was the researcher’s personal experiences and presumptions. The

researcher was previously a higher education administrator at a for-profit institution and

has experience working and interacting with students in the sector. Presuppositions and

prejudgments were excluded using the transcendental phenomenology approach (epoché)

as described in Moustakas (1994), and the risk was addressed using a personal log to

identify potential issues as the study progressed. Additionally, the researcher did not

review and identify themes from existing literature while coding and transcribing

participant narratives on experiences at for-profit colleges or the motivation to select

these institutions.

The sample size was another limitation for this study. The researcher contacted

three local for-profit institutions, and two national companies, for permission to obtain

student input for this study, but with no result. The sample size consisted of eleven

participants, ten of whom were female and one of whom was male. Creswell (2008)

suggested that the sample size for qualitative, phenomenological research range from

three to ten participants. A larger sample size would have yielded additional data that

would have provided a richer, more comprehensive understanding of the phenomena.

Further, the inclusion of the experiences from additional male participants might have

provided meaningful data related to yet undiscovered themes or invariants. Lastly, the

study sample included only nontraditional students as defined by NCES (2015) and

133

Pelletier (2010). The experiences and perspectives of traditional students would have

been an additional data source in forming the composite experience of for-profit college

students.

A third limitation of the study was related to study design issues. Most of the

participant interviews were conducted by telephone or Skype. The digital recordings

could have resulted in misunderstanding or misinterpretation of meaning, which may be a

limitation. Although participants were provided instructions prior to the interview and an

interview guide was utilized, there may have been uncertainty about the information as

well. Assurance of the accuracy of participant statements was in place; however, during

coding and transcribing, several parts of the narratives contained personally identifiable

information about several participants. To protect the anonymity of the study

participants, pseudonyms were assigned and any personal information that would have

identified a specific participant was removed during transcription.

Despite the possible limitations, the results fulfill the purpose of this study. The

resulting themes, or invariant elements, provided a better understanding of the lived

experiences of students attending for-profit colleges; the reasons they persist and the

rationale for attending these institutions. The study adds to current literature on the for-

profit sector by providing a phenomenological approach which has not been used

extensively in existing literature. The significance of this study is that the information

may be used by student affairs staff, higher education administrators, scholars, and other

institutional constituents at for-profit and public colleges to develop an understanding

about the motivation to choose a for-profit institution and the factors that influence

retention and persistence, and to better inform the student affairs practice.

134

Recommendations Based on the Findings

In addition to supporting the purpose of this study, the findings identified themes

that are essential to the work of student affairs personnel and administrators in higher

education. The results of the study and the recommendations described below have

applications to student affairs, teaching, and higher education administration work, and

would be beneficial to staff members, faculty, and administrators, particularly those

working with students at for-profit institutions. Recommendations of the study are based

on the descriptions of for-profit college students and their lived experiences while

attending a for-profit institution, as well as descriptions of students’ motivation to choose

a for-profit college. Retention and persistence of college students has received much

scholarly focus, and the motivation and rationale for choosing a for-profit college has

been addressed in the literature (e.g., Chung 2012; Iloh & Tierney, 2014). Prior to this

study, there were few studies existing in the literature that endeavored to develop an

understanding of the student experience at for-profit colleges from a qualitative,

phenomenological perspective.

The data derived from this study has practical applications for institutional staff

members who provide support and services for students during their time with the

institution. Personnel who work in admissions or enrollment are usually the initial point

of contact for new students enrolling at for-profit institutions, and in conjunction with

financial aid counselors, are critical resources in helping students navigate the enrollment

and financial aid processes. Knowledge of the lived experiences of for-profit college

students, and their challenges and needs, can greatly inform the work of those involved

with matriculation. Making connections with students as early as possible in their

135

academic career helps to build rapport, fosters engagement, and enhances satisfaction

with the educational experience. Student advisors can utilize the lived experiences of for-

profit students, and their motivation for enrolling in a program, to develop an academic

plan that will not only help students be successful, but create interest and engagement in

the institution itself – factors that increase retention and persistence. Positive interactions

between students and advisors, in which advisors actively listen, answer questions,

address concerns, and demonstrate a caring attitude, will result in an increased level of

trust and influence achievement and retention. Students who have a satisfactory

experience with student-customer support services are more likely to communicate the

positive aspects of the institution. From a business perspective, satisfied student-

customers will speak positively about the quality of the services, and are more likely to

be retained as a customer and communicate to others about the institution (Schneider,

White, & Paul, 1998). The for-profit model emphasizes product development,

community relations, and customer satisfaction (Tierney, 2011).

The interaction with faculty members was a significant influence on the study

participants, therefore this study is also relevant to those teaching in postsecondary

education. Academic engagement is increased with instructor availability, and faculty

members can be a valuable resource in assisting students in identifying and using

resources to support student success; in fact, the instructional experience is a critical

element influencing student retention. The results of this study indicated that for-profit

college students rely on faculty, staff, and the institution for guidance and assistance.

The narratives from the study participants support these studies; support services

personnel, faculty, and institutional programs were mentioned as instrumental in enabling

136

participant achievement and success. As a student transitions from enrollment to an

academic program, faculty members become key players in retention and persistence

efforts. Not only are faculty responsible for instruction and advising, but act as

counselors and mentors as well. The interactions with faculty and access to academic

support networks are important in retaining students (Astin, 1984; Pascarella &

Terenzini, 2005; Tinto, 1994). Higher education institutions that provide opportunities

for in-class and out-of-class interactions between students and faculty will benefit from

increased retention and persistence.

Recommendations for Future Research

Phenomenological research that examines the lived experiences of the participants

is of value, therefore it is recommended that additional qualitative studies be undertaken

with larger sample sizes. Although Creswell (2011) recommended a sample size of ten

participants for qualitative studies, a deeper understanding of the phenomena could be

derived from the richer data obtained from a larger sample. The results of this study were

derived from a largely female perspective; consequently, there is a necessity for a study

that equalizes the input about the for-profit experience based on gender. This might

provide additional themes or invariant elements yet to be discovered. Further research

could include phenomenological studies that specifically focus on the influence of for-

profit faculty, staff, administration, or the institution on student retention and persistence.

Additionally, the role of faculty members at for-profit institutions, from a

phenomenological perspective, is relatively absent in the literature. The rationale and

motivation to attend a for-profit institution is addressed mainly from a quantitative

perspective, and additional studies from qualitative perspective would add to the existing

137

research in the literature. Researchers could utilize an alternative data design to generate

different themes and invariant elements.

Conclusions

The findings from this study support the overall purpose, which was to develop an

understanding of the student experience at for-profit institutions, and the motivation for

choosing to attend these schools. The study participants identified five themes or

invariant elements that made up the composite description of the students’ lived

experiences while attending a for-profit college. Conclusions were drawn and found to

be in alignment with prior and current literature on student interaction with staff, faculty,

administration, and the institution, as well as research on for-profit college choice.

There were three potential limitations of this study, including: 1) researcher

personal experiences and presumptions; 2) small sample size of eleven participants, of

which all but one was female, resulting in a lack of a male perspective; and 3) study

design issue in which most of the interviews were conducted by telephone or Skype and

could have contributed to misunderstanding and misinterpretation. Recommendations

are provided for application to student-customer services functions at for-profit

institutions, and to inform the work of student affairs personnel, administration, and

faculty members at for-profit schools. In addition, there are scholarly applications for

students enrolled in higher education programs and those who are interested in issues

within the for-profit sector. Future qualitative research is needed to focus on specific

areas of for-profit education, including the role faculty, staff, administration, and the

institution, as it relates to retention and persistence. Different themes or invariant

138

elements might be derived from an alternative data design in which interviews are

conducted in various formats, such as face-to-face.

This phenomenological study of the lived experiences of students attending for-

profit institutions and their motivation to enroll and persistence in a program of study, has

filled a gap in the literature by providing a deeper understanding of the phenomena

through rich data based on student narratives. Much quantitative work has been done on

the for-profit sector with regard to the economic and financial impacts on students;

however, limited qualitative research exists on the experience of students who choose to

attend for-profit institutions. The narratives of study participants give for-profit students

a voice in the literature, and identified themes which may have practical applications for

student affairs personnel, faculty members, and administrators at for-profit, public, and

private colleges and universities.

139

REFERENCES

Adelman, C. (2006). The toolbox revisited: Paths to degree completion from high school

through college. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Apling, R. N. (1993). Proprietary schools and their students. Journal of Higher

Education, 64(4), 379-416.

Arcand, C. (2015). How can community colleges better serve low-income single-mother

students? Lessons from the for-profit sector. Community College Journal of

Research and Practice, 39(12), 1187-1191. doi:10.1080/10668926.2014.985403

Astin, A.W. (1977). What matters most in college: Four critical years. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education.

Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 297-308.

Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college?. Liberal Education, 79(4), 4.

Aud, S., Hussar, W., Kena, G., Bianco, K., Frohlich, L., Kemp, J., Tahan, K. (2011). The

Condition of Education 2011 (NCES 2011-033). U.S. Department of Education,

National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office.

Bailey, T., Badway, N., & Gumport, P. J. (2001). For-profit higher education and

community colleges. Stanford, CA: National Center for Postsecondary

Improvement, Stanford University.

140

Behrman, J. R., Kletzer, L. G., McPherson, M. S., & Schapiro, M. O. (1992). The college

investment decision: direct and indirect effects of family background on choice of

postsecondary enrollment and quality. Technical Report DP-18, Williams Project

on the Economics of Higher Education, Williams College, Denison Gatehouse

Williamstown, MA 01267.

Bennett, D, Lucchesi, A. & Vedder, R. (2010). For-profit higher education: Growth,

innovation and regulation. Center for College Affordability and Productivity.

Washington, DC: Retrieved from:

http://www.centerforcollegeaffordability.org/uploads/ForProfit_HigherEd.pdf

Bentley, N. W. (2012). A look at proprietary/for-profit higher education in U.S.A.

[PowerPoint slides].

Berg, G. A. (2005). Lessons from the edge: For-profit and nontraditional higher

education in America. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Berger, J. B., & Milem, J. F. (2000). Organizational behavior in higher education and

student outcomes. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory

and research (Vol. XV, pp. 268–338). New York, NY: Agathon.

Bers, T. H., & Smith, K. (1987). College choice and the nontraditional student.

Community College Review, 15(39), 39–45.

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklan, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research for education (3rd ed.).

Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Cabrera, A. F., & La Nasa, S. M. (2000). Understanding the college-choice process. New

Directions for Institutional Research, 2000(107), 5–22.

141

Cellini, S. R., & Chaudhary, L. (2014). The labor market returns to a for-profit college

education. Economics of Education Review, 43125-140.

doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2014.10.001

Chapman, R. G. (1986).Toward a theory of college selection: A model of college search

and choice behavior. Advances in Consumer Research, 13, 246–250.

Chung, A. S. (2012). Choice of for-profit college. Economics of Education Review,

31(6), 1084-1101. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2012.07.004

Conklin, K. A. (1993). Leaving the community college: Attrition, completion, or

something else? Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 17(1) 1-

11.

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five

approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating

quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson/Merrill

Prentice Hall.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano, C. V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods

research. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.

Deming, D., Goldin, C., & Katz, L. (2012). The for-profit postsecondary school sector:

Nimble critters or agile predators. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(1), 139-

164.

Deming, D., Goldin, C., & Katz, L. (2013). For-profit colleges. Future Of Children, 137-

163.

Diel-Amen, R. & Rosenbaum, J.E. (2003). The social prerequisites of success: Can

142

college structure reduce the need for social know-how?” Annals of the American

Academy of Political and Social Science, 586:120-143.

Dundon, M. (2015). Students or consumers? For-profit colleges and the practical and

theoretical role of consumer protection. Harvard Law and Policy Review, 9-2,

375-401. Retrieved from

http://harvardlpr.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/9.2_4_Dundon.pdf

Edens, D. (2012). The value of student satisfaction assessment at for-profit higher

education institutions. Retrieved from

https://www.ruffalonl.com/documents/shared/Papers_and_Research/2012/

Career_School_Assessment_Edens.pd

Fain, P. (2014, July 10). Clearinghouse finds number of first-time college graduates

declining. Retrieved from

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/09/30/clearinghouse-finds-

number-first-time-college-graduates-declining

Foroohar, R. (2016). What comes after for-profit colleges' 'Lehman Moment'? Possibly an

education crash. Time, 188(12), 25.

Gilpin, G. A., Saunders, J., & Stoddard, C. (2015). Why has for-profit colleges' share of

higher education expanded so rapidly? Estimating the responsiveness to labor

market changes. Economics of Education Review, 45, 53-63.

Guida, A., & Figuli, D. (2012). Higher education's gainful employment and 90/10 rules:

Unintended "scarlet letters" for minority, low-income, and other at-risk

students. The University of Chicago Law Review, 79(1), 131-158. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/41552898

143

Guignon, C. B. (2006). History and historicity. In A companion to phenomenology and

existentialism (pp. 545-558). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Hagelskamp, C., Schleifer, D., & DiStaci, C. (2014). Profiting higher education: What

students, alumni and employers think about for-profit colleges. Retrieved from

Public Agenda website: http://www.publicagenda.org/pages/profiting-higher-

education

Hawthorne, E. M. (1995). Proprietary schools and community colleges: The next chapter.

New Directions for Community Colleges, 23(3), 93-98.

Hesse-Biber, S. N., & Leavy, P. (2011). The practice of qualitative research. Los Angeles,

CA: SAGE.

Hittman, J. A. (1995). Changes in mission, governance, and funding of proprietary

postsecondary institutions. New Directions for Community Colleges, 23(3), 17-25.

Holland, M. M. (2013). Unequal playing fields, same game: The college application

process for students at diverse high schools (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved

from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (Accession Order No.

1417074947).

Honick, C. A. (1995). The story behind proprietary schools in the United States. New

Directions for Community Colleges, 23(3), 27-39.

Howard-Vital, M. (2006). The Appeal of For-Profit Institutions. Change, 38(1), 68-71.

Iloh, C., & Tierney, W.G. (2013). A comparison of for-profit and community college

admissions practices through examination of phone communication. College &

University, 88(4), 2-12.

Iloh, C., & Tierney, W. G. (2014). Understanding for-profit college and community

144

college choice through rational choice. Teachers College Record, 116, 1-34.

Johnson, D.R. (1991). Formulating a conceptual model of nontraditional student attrition

and persistence in postsecondary vocational education programs. Berkeley, CA:

National Center for Research in Vocational Education. (ERIC Document

Reproduction Service No. ED 332 012).

Kantrowitz, M. (2009, December 22). Characteristics of students enrolling at for-profit

colleges. Retrieved from http://www.finaid.org/educators/20091222for-profit-

colleges.pdf

Kelly, K. F. (2001). Meeting needs and making profits: The rise of for-profit degree-

granting institutions. Retrieved from Education Commission of the States

website: http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/27/33/2733.htm

Kena, G., Musu-Gillette, L., Robinson, J., Wang, X., Rathbun, A., Zhang, J., Wilkinson-

Flicker, S., Barmer, A., and Dunlop Velez, E. (2015). The Condition of Education

2015 (NCES 2015-144). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for

Education Statistics. Washington, DC. Retrieved from

http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch

Kinser, K. (2005). A profile of regionally accredited for-profit institutions of higher

education. New Directions for Higher Education, (129), 69-83.

Kinser, K. (2006a). From main street to wall street: the transformation of for-profit

higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kinser, K. (2006b). Principles of student affairs in for-profit higher education. NASPA

Journal,43(2), 254-279.

Kirkham, C. (2011, August 3). For-profit colleges draw minorities, stir murky debate on

145

student success. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/02/as-

minority-enrollments-s_n_916541.html

Kowalski, A.P. (1996). Don’t overlook trade and technical schools. Retrieved from

http://www.2environs.com:443/talbot/trade1.html

Kuh, G. D. (1995). The other curriculum: Out-of-class experiences associated with

student learning and personal development. Journal of Higher Education, 66(2):

123-155.

Kutz, G. D. (2010). For-profit colleges: Undercover testing finds colleges encouraged

fraud and engaged in deceptive and questionable marketing practices (GAO-10-

948T). Retrieved from United States Government Accountability Office website:

http://www.gao.gov/assets/130/125197.pdf

Lee, L. (1996) Community colleges and proprietary schools: ERIC Digest.

(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 400 003).

Lincoln, Y. S. (1995). Emerging criteria for quality in qualitative and interpretive

research. Qualitative Inquiry, 1, 275-289.

Looney, A., & Yannelis, C. (2015). A crisis in student loans? How changes in the

characteristics of borrowers and in the institutions they attended contributed to

rising loan defaults. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1-89. Retrieved

from https://www.brookings.edu/wp-

content/uploads/2015/09/LooneyTextFall15BPEA.pdf

MacNeill, R. M. (1990). The prediction of dropout in an entry level trades training

program (Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia 1990).

Dissertation Abstracts International, 52, 10A.

146

MacQueen, G. (2012). Closing doors: The gainful employment rule as over-regulation of

for-profit higher education that will restrict access to higher education for

America's poor. Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law & Policy,19(2), 309-330.

Manski, C. F. &Wise, D. A. (1983). College choice in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

May, T. (2002). Qualitative research design. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

McDonough, P. M. (1997). Choosing colleges: how social class and schools structure

opportunity. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. (2nd

ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Midwest Technical Institute. (n.d.). Student services. Retrieved from

https://midwesttech.edu/student-services/

Mills, V. L. (1995). Staying as a repurchase decision: A study of students who stay

and students who leave from a proprietary school setting (Doctoral

dissertation, Northwestern University, 1995). Dissertation Abstracts

International,56, 07-A.

Mitchell, J. (2016, May 31). The average student at a for-profit college was worse off

after attending [Web log post]. Retrieved from

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/05/31/the-average-student-at-a-for-profit-

college-was-worse-off-than-before-attending-school/

Moore, R. W. (1995). Proprietary schools – Are they heroes or villains in education?

The Journal of Technology Studies, 2(1), 60-65.

Moran, D. (2000). Introduction to phenomenology. London, UK: Routledge.Morial, M. (2011, January 7). A higher education stumbling block for at-risk students.

147

Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-

dyn/content/article/2011/01/06/AR2011010604385.html

Morey, A. I. (2004). Globalization and the emergence of for-profit higher

education. Higher Education, 48(1), 131-150.

Morris, W.V. (1993). Avoiding community colleges: Students who attend proprietary

vocational schools. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 17, 21-

28.

Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC). (2016). The low-

down on for-profit colleges. Retrieved from

http://www.nacacnet.org/issuesaction/LegislativeNews/Pages/For-Profit-

Colleges.aspx

NEA Higher Education Research Center. (2004). Proprietary education: Threat, or not?

Retrieved from National Education Association website:

http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/HE/vol10no4.pdf

Noaman, A. (2011). Seven habits of highly effective for-profit colleges: What traditional

colleges can learn from for-profits. University Business. Retrieved from

https://www.universitybusiness.com/article/seven-habits-highly-effective-profit-

colleges

Nocera, J. (2011, September 16). Why we need for-profit colleges. Retrieved from

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/magazine/why-we-need-for-profit-

colleges.html?_r=0

148

Noel, L. (1985). Increasing student retention: New challenges and potential. In Noel, L.,

Levitz, R., Saluri, D., & Associates (Eds.), Increasing Student Retention (pp. 1-

27). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Oseguera, L., Kimball, E., & Hwang, J. (2011, November). Low-income students’

predictors of for-profit versus not-for-profit college and university enrollment.

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher

Education, Indianapolis, IN.

Oseguera, L., & Rhee, B. S. (2009). The influence of institutional retention climates on

student persistence to degree completion: A multilevel approach. Research in

Higher Education, 50, 546-569. Retrieved from

http://www.heri.ucla.edu/PDFs/Oseguera_Rhee_RetentionClimates_2009.pdf

Parse, R. R., Coyne, A. B., & Smith, M. J. (1985). Nursing research: Qualitative

methods. Bowie, MD: Brady.

Pascarella, E. T. (1985). College environmental influences on learning and cognitive

development: A critical review and synthesis. In Higher Education: Handbook of

Theory and Research, Vol. 1, edited by J. C. Smart, 1-62. New York, NY:

Agathon.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1976). Informal interaction with faculty and

freshman ratings of academic and non-academic experience of college. Journal of

Educational Research, 70(1).

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1979). Student-faculty informal contact and college

persistence: A further investigation. Journal of Educational Research, 72(4).

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students. Vol. 2: A third

149

decade of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Pautler, A., Roufa, S., & Thompson, J. (1988). Postsecondary technical education: The

proprietary sector, Journal of Studies in Technical Careers,10 (1), 61-71.

Pelletier, S. G. (2010). Success for adult students. Retrieved from

http://www.aascu.org/uploadedFiles/AASCU/Content/Root/MediaAndPublication

s/PublicPurposeMagazines/Issue/10fall_adultstudents.pdf

Polit, D.F., & Beck, C.T. (2006). Essentials of nursing research: Methods, appraisal, and

utilization (6th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

Raisman, N. (2013). The cost of college attrition at four-year colleges & universities.

Retrieved from Educational Policy Institute website:

http://www.educationalpolicy.org/pdf/1302_PolicyPerspectives.pdf

Reason, R. D. (2003). Student variables that predict retention: Recent research and new

developments. NASPA Journal, 40, 172–191.

Reason, R. D., Terenzini, P. T., and Domingo, R. J. (2005). First things first: Developing

academic competence in the first year of college. Paper presented at the annual

meeting for the Association for Institutional Research, San Diego, CA.

Rendon, L. (1995, May). Facilitating retention and transfer for the first generation

students in community colleges. Paper presented at the New Mexico Institute,

Rural Community College Initiative, Espanola, NM.

Rendon, L. I., Jalomo, R., E., & Nora, A. (2000). Theoretical considerations in the study

of minority student retention in higher education. In J. M. Braxton (Ed.),

150

Reworking the student departure puzzle (pp. 127–156). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt

University Press.

Revelle, K. J. (1997). “Cause I been out of school for a while….” A qualitative study of

the decision to enroll in postsecondary proprietary school (Doctoral dissertation).

Dissertation Abstracts International, 58, 07A.

Ruch, R. S. (2001). Higher Ed, Inc.: The rise of the for-profit university. Baltimore,

MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

St. John, E. P., & Starkey, J. B. (1995). An alternative to net price: Assessing the

influence of prices and subsidies on within-year persistence. Journal of Higher

Education, 66(2), 156–186.

Saret, L. (n.d.). Retaining students in classes: Putting theory into everyday practice.

Retrieved from http://www.oakton.edu/user/1/lsaret/LauraSaretOakton

WebSite/Ways%20Faculty%20Can%20Encourage%20Student%20Retention.htm

Schade, S. A. (2014). Reining in the predatory nature of for-profit colleges. Arizona Law

Review, 56(317), 317-340. Retrieved from http://arizonalawreview.org/56-

1/reining-in-the-predatory-nature-of-for-profit-colleges/

Schneider, B., White, S. S., & Paul, M. C. (1998). Linking service climate and customer

perceptions of service quality: Tests of a causal model. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 83, 15–163.

Schreiner, L. A. (2009). Linking student satisfaction and retention. Retrieved from Noel-

Levitz, Inc. website:

https://www.ruffalonl.com/documents/shared/Papers_and_Research/2009/Linking

StudentSatis0809.pdf

151

Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research

projects. Education for Information, 22, 63-75. Retrieved from

http://www.crec.co.uk/docs/Trustworthypaper.pdf

Smith, A. A. (2015, July 15). The for-profit industry is struggling, but has not reached the

end of the road. Retrieved from

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/07/15/profit-industry-struggling-has-

not-reached-end-road

Smith, G., & Bailey, V. (1993). Staying the course. London: Business and Technology

Education Council. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service, No. ED 359 356)

Stamps, D. (1998). The for-profit future of higher education. Training, 35(8), 22-30.

Stolar, S. M. (1991). Non-traditional age students: Attrition, retention, and

recommendations for campus change. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service

No. ED 335 092)

Swail, W. S. (2004). The art of student retention: A handbook for practitioners and

administrators. Austin, TX: Educational Policy Institute.

Taube, S. R., & Taube, P. M. (1990). Pre and post-enrollment factors associated with

achievement in technical postsecondary schools. Community/Junior College

Quarterly of Research and Practice, 14 (2), 93-99.

Taube, S R., & Taube, P. M. (1991). Predicting student achievement and attrition in a

proprietary technical college. Journal of Vocational and Technical Education,

8(1), 35-45.

Terenzini, P.T., & Pascarella, E.T. (1991). Twenty years of research on college

students: Lessons for future research. Research in Higher Education,

152

32(1), 82-93.

Terenzini, P. T., & Pascarella, E. T. (1994). Living with myths. Change, 26(1), 28.

Terenzini, P. T., & Reason, R. D. (2005, November). Parsing the first year of college:

Rethinking the effects of college on students. Paper presented at the Annual

Conference of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Philadelphia,

PA.

The Art Institutes. (n.d.). Our story. Retrieved from https://www.artinstitutes.edu/about

The College Board. (2014, October 1). Trends in higher education: Average published

undergraduate charges by sector, 2014-15. Retrieved from

http://trends.collegeboard.org/college-pricing/figures-tables/average-published-

undergraduate-charges-sector-2014-15

Tierney, W. G. (2011). Too big to fail: The role of for-profit colleges and universities in

American higher education. Change, 43(6), 27-32.

doi:10.1080/00091383.2011.618079

Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent

research. Review of Educational Research, 45, 89–125.

Tinto, V. (1988). Stages of student departure: Reflections on the longitudinal

character of student leaving. Journal of Higher Education, 59(4), 438-55.

Tinto, V. (1990). Principles of effective retention. Journal of the Freshman Year

Experience, 2(1), 35-48.

Tinto, V. (1997). Classrooms as communities: Exploring the educational character of

student persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 68(6), 599-623.

Tinto, V. (2004). Student retention and graduation: Facing the truth, living with the

153

consequences. Retrieved from The Pell Institute website:

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED519709.pdf

Tinto, V. (2016, September 26). From retention to persistence. Retrieved from

https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2016/09/26/how-improve-student-

persistence-and-completion-essay://

Tinto, V., & Goodsell, A. (1993). Freshman interest groups and the first-year

experience: Constructing student communities in a large university. Journal of

the Freshman Year Experience, 6(1),7-28.

Tinto, V., & Pusser, B. (2006). Moving from theory to Action: Building a model of

institutional action for student success. Retrieved from National Postsecondary

Education Cooperative website:

http://nces.ed.gov/npec/pdf/Tinto_Pusser_Report.pdf

Tinto, V., Russon, P., & Stephanie, K. (1994). Constructing educational communities:

Increase retention in challenging circumstances. Community College Journal,

64(4), pp. 18-22.

Tumblin, R. S. (2002). The college choice process of non-traditional students. Toledo,

OH: University of Toledo.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2016, January 25). Poverty guidelines.

Retrieved from https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines

U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. (2012). For-profit

higher education: The failure to safeguard the federal investment and ensure

student success. Retrieved from

154

http://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/for_profit_report/PartI-PartIII-

SelectedAppendixes.pdf

University of Phoenix. (n.d.). Career services. Retrieved from

http://www.phoenix.edu/career-services.html

Villella, E. F., & Hu, M. (1991). A factor analysis of variables affecting the retention

decision of nontraditional college students. NASPA Journal, 28(4), 334-41.

Walden University. (n.d.). Student support services. Retrieved from

https://www.waldenu.edu/

Webb, M.S. (1990). Proprietary business schools: Variables influencing students’

college choices (Doctoral dissertation). Dissertation Abstracts International 51,

01A.

Wilson, R. (2010, February 7). For-profit colleges change higher education's landscape.

Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/For-Profit-Colleges-Change-/64012/

Winston, G. C. (1999). For-profit higher education. Change, 31(1), 12.

Yeoman, B. (2011). The high price of for-profit colleges. Academe. Retrieved from

https://www.aaup.org/article/high-price-profit-colleges#.WAfWM_krKUk

Zamani-Gallaher, E. M. (2004). Proprietary schools: Beyond the issue of profit. New

Directions for Institutional Research, 124, 63-79.

155

APPENDIX A

Student Interview Guide

156

Background Information

Please tell me something of your background – about your family and where you grew

up.

Where did you go to high school?

How would you describe yourself as a high school student?

Did you graduate?

Did you go to college immediately following high school? If not, what were the reasons?

College Choice

Note: Probing questions used at the end of an answer to clarify and provide more detail.

What schools did you apply to when you decided to go to college? Why?

Could you please tell me about your decision to enroll in this college?

What program are you in? When did you start college here?

How far from school do you live?

Did you know this is a “for-profit” college?

Does that mean anything to you?

For-Profit College Experience and Satisfaction

Note: Probing questions may be used at the end of a participant’s answer to elicit

clarification and additional detail.

What are the best things about this college?

What things about this college would you change if you could?

Do you/did you ever feel pressured with enrolling, or in applying for financial aid?

Are you happy with the services offered at the college? Explain.

Are you happy with the education you received from the college? Explain.

157

Do you/did you know how much it costs (tuition) to attend the college?

Do you/ did you take out student loans to pay for your education?

Do you/ did you worry about being able to afford your loan payments?

Did the college help you to get, or advance, in a job?

Has your college experience met your expectations? Explain.

Is there anything else you want to tell me about your experience with this college?

Overall, are you satisfied with your experience at this college? Why/why not?

Would you enroll at this college again, or recommend it to others?

APPENDIX B

Faculty / Staff Interview Guide

158

1. Please relate your perspective on the role of student (customer) service at your college. (Staff)

2. Tell me about your interaction with students as a teacher (or staff member) at your college.

3. Please relate your experience providing information about the cost of attendance or student aid. (Staff)

4. What is your perspective of the value of a for-profit education?5. In your work with students, what motivates them to enroll and attend your

institution?

APPENDIX C

Informed Consent Form

159

Type of Research: You are invited to be part of the study, Giving Students a Voice: A Phenomenological Study of Student Experience at For-Profit Colleges, conducted by Sherry A. Phelan, a doctoral candidate in the Higher Education and Organizational Change (HEOC) program at Benedictine University.

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to explore the reasons why students choose for-profit colleges, and to describe the personal experiences of these students during their enrollment. I seek to address the following research questions: 1) What motivates students to attend a for-profit institution? 2) What are the students’ experiences in for-profit education once enrolled? 3) What are the students’ perspectives of the role of customer (student) service functions at the institution?

Procedures: Your participation in this study is strictly voluntary and you can withdraw from it at any time with no penalty to you. You will be asked to respond to a series of questions about your experiences at a for-profit college. These questions will include topics of college choice, your experience during your enrollment at the school, and your overall satisfaction with the school. Follow-up interviews may be requested depending on the research needs and purposes. The interview will be audio- or video-recorded (pending your consent) and transcribed. The transcription of the interview will be presented to you for verification of accuracy.

Risks: The study does not have any known or potential risks. You are invited to participate in an individual interview, which will last approximately two hours by telephone, web conference (such as Skype), web-based questionnaire, or at a location convenient to both you and the researcher.

Benefits: It is expected that results of this study will uncover new understandings of the experiences of students attending for-profit colleges, and the reasons they chose these colleges. Given that there are few qualitative studies in the for-profit college setting, this will add to understanding of student choice and satisfaction.

Data Collection and Storage: All files pertaining to your interview will be stored electronically on a password-protected computer on a secure server. For confidentiality purposes, the interview transcripts and all files pertaining to your participation in this study will be stored for one year and destroyed afterwards if no longer needed. Your actual name will be known only to the principal researcher (me). The interview will be given a secure code and a pseudonym will be assigned to your name to keep all the information fully confidential. Excerpts from the interview may be included in the final dissertation report or other later publications. However, under no circumstances will your name or identifying characteristics appear in these writings. If, at a subsequent date, biographical data were relevant to a publication, a separate release form would be sent to you.

Contact Information: This study is being conducted in part to fulfill requirements for my Ed.D. degree in HEOC at the graduate school of Benedictine University in Lisle, IL. This study has been approved by the Institutional Review Board of Benedictine

160

University. The Chair of the IRB is Dr. Alandra Weller-Clarke, who can be contacted at IRB@ben.edu or by phone at 603-829-6295. If you have questions regarding this study, please feel free to contact me at sherryaphelan@yahoo.com or 417-763-0344. You can also contact my dissertation advisor Dr. Jamal Scott at jrnsl4036@gmail.com. Consent Statement: I have read and understand the study described above. I am 18 years of age or older and freely consent to participate. I understand that I am free to withdraw from the study at any time. A copy of this consent form will be provided to me.

Please acknowledge with your signatures below your consent to participate in this study and to record your interview.

Thank you.

I consent to participate in this study

Name: Date:

____________________________ _____________________________ [Signature]

I give my permission to video tape or screen record this interview

Name: Date:

____________________________ _____________________________[Signature]

APPENDIX D

Student Intake Survey

161

Note: These questions will be provided via an electronic survey tool, such as Survey Monkey or Google Forms, prior to the in-depth interview.

1. Gender a. Femaleb. Male

2. Agea. 18 and underb. 19 to 24c. 25 to 34d. 35 to 44e. 45 and over

3. Ethnicity/Racea. Alaskan Nativeb. American Indianc. Asiand. Black/African Americane. Hispanic or Latinof. Caucasian/Whiteg. Multi-racialh. Other

4. Current course loada. Full-timeb. Part-timec. Graduate

5. Class level (years at this school)a. 1 or lessb. 2c. 3d. 4 or more

6. Current educational goala. Diploma/certificateb. Associate’s degreec. Bachelor’s degreed. I have received my degree (what degree did you receive?________________)e. Other

162

7. Employmenta. Full-time b. Part-time c. Not employed

8. (If graduate) Are you working in a career field you received your degree in?a. Yesb. No

9. Current residence:a. Rent home or apartmentb. Parent’s homec. Own housed. Other

10. Do you plan to transfer to another institution? (Or, if a graduate: Are you pursing another degree?)

a. Yesb. No

10. My primary source for paying my tuition and fees is/wasa. Scholarshipsb. Financial aidc. Family contributionsd. Self-supporte. Other

APPENDIX E

Invitation Letter / Email Text

Dear ___,

163

My name is Sherry Phelan. I am a doctoral candidate in the College of Education Department at the Benedictine University. I am conducting a research study as part of the requirements of my Ed.D. degree, and I would like to invite you to participate.

I am studying the experience of students who are, or have, attended a for-profit college. If you decide to participate, you will be asked about your experiences while attending college. In particular, you will be asked questions about the reasons you attended this college, what you experienced when you were enrolled there, and your feelings about the education you received.

If you are local, we can meet face-to-face at a convenient location for a meeting lasting about two hours. We can also do a phone interview or web conference using Skype, and either of these would last about two hours. If these options are not convenient for you, you will be able to complete an online questionnaire.

Face-to-face, phone, and web conference interviews will be recorded or video-taped so that I can accurately record and reflect on what is discussed. The recordings will only be reviewed by me and I will transcribe and analyze them. They will then be destroyed at the conclusion of the study. You do not have to answer any questions that you do not wish to. Although you probably won’t benefit directly from participating in this study, your experience will be used to improve student services at other colleges and universities.

Participation is confidential. Your actual name will be known only to me. The interview will be given a secure code, and a pseudonym will be assigned to your name to keep all the information fully confidential. Study information will be kept on a secured, password-protected computer drive. The results of the study may be published or presented at professional meetings, but your identity will not be revealed.

If you are chosen to participate in this study, you will receive a $20 Amazon e-gift card for your time and full participation in the interview.

Taking part in the study is your decision. You do not have to participate in this study if you do not want to. You may also withdraw from the study at any time or decide not to answer any question you are not comfortable answering.

We will be happy to answer any questions you have about the study. You may contact me at sherryaphelan@yahoo.com or 417-763-0344, or my study advisor, Dr. Jamal Scott, at jrnsl4036@gmail.com if you have study related questions or problems.

164

If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, you may contact the Institutional Research Board at Benedictine University at IRB@ben.edu or 630-829-6295.

Thank you for your consideration. If you are interested in participating in this study, please reply to this email for further instructions.

Best regards,

Sherry A. Phelan2088 W. Richwood Rd.Ozark, Missouri 65721417-763-0344sherryaphelan@yahoo.com

165