The Decision Threatening The Future Of For-Profit Colleges

Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

For 15 years the University of Phoenix conducted an incredible experiment. Fueled by the Internet and a take-all-comers approach, the private for-profit college became a massive national institution, earning hundreds of millions of dollars in the process. But on Monday, executives at Phoenix’s parent company, Apollo Education Group, declared the experiment a failure that had to end. The rest of the for-profit college community should be terrified of what that means for them.

Before it had 460,000 students in campuses across the country, Phoenix was a college that identified a gap in the educational market: working adult learners. These older students had some college experience or exhibited the discipline to successfully balance, work, life and academic demands. These students were not well-served by most traditional four-year institutions, many of which were on an endless quest for high-income 18-year-olds instead of older and poorer adults.

So in the 1970s Phoenix created a model attuned to this type of learner, complete with flexible schedules and programs paired to workforce demands. But Phoenix would not take just anyone: Enrollees had to be at least 23, work fulltime, have at least two years of employment experience, and have some college credit. It was certainly not selective in the way that status-seeking traditional colleges were, but Phoenix did say no to people who were not set up to succeed in its coursework.

Phoenix found a population waiting to be served. By 1994 it had 31,000 students—the size of most large public colleges. But the university wanted to be bigger, and Wall Street was ready to assist. In 1995, the university’s parent company went public and, before the decade was out, enrollment passed the 100,000 student mark.

There was just one problem: The population suited to Phoenix’s specific model was not big enough to keep meeting the quarterly investor demands for new students. Faced with the choice between maintaining quality but capping growth (and stock prices) or abandoning the core model in pursuit of profit, Phoenix’s age, work and other restrictions went by the wayside. A learning environment calibrated to a very particular set of students was suddenly welcoming anyone with a pulse.

A for-profit-friendly Congress and George W. Bush’s Department of Education helped fuel Phoenix’s expansion. In the mid-2000s Congress removed limitations that prevented colleges from offering more than half of a course via distance education, ushering in the online education boom. And the Department of Education undermined statutory requirements that prevented college recruiters from offering monetary incentives to enroll more students. A model willing to take anyone now truly could accomplish that goal through the Internet and it could handsomely compensate its employees to do so.

On paper, this open access approach seemed great for students who suddenly had more educational opportunities. The problem was the cost-to-value equation was off. Students who before could try a low-cost community college with little longterm risk if they did not finish were now asked to borrow thousands of dollars to try something. The result was like flooding the system with lottery tickets where the non-winners must keep paying for a decade.

The results for Phoenix were predictable: It grew by leaps and bounds, more than quadrupling its enrollment. And it created a business model for companies like Corinthian Colleges, ITT Technical Institute, and others to emulate.

It was easy to foresee the other half of the story, too. Phoenix ran afoul of the weakened rules on compensating recruiters. Axia College, which the company created in 2004 to offer two-year programs, suffered from poor quality and was eventually merged into the main college. The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee started investigating what was going on and a Democratic administration that was less friendly to for-profit colleges started closing loopholes and introducing new regulations.

The descent was not pretty. More than a hundred campuses closed. Enrollment halved and kept dropping. A special learning platform built by top-notch engineers had technical difficulties so significant the company says it hurt retention rates and is being dropped for other commercial options. Phoenix’s peers in the for-profit education market started shrinking too. One went bankrupt; another is exiting the market. Still others might fold.

On Monday, Phoenix’s parent company ended the experiment and announced that it was considering implementing new admissions criteria that would limit the number of underprepared students it enrolls. It is also closing most of those problematic associate degree programs once housed under the Axia brand.

Phoenix is making the right call, but years too late. While it was tarnishing its brand in pursuit of growth at all costs, other companies like Strayer and Capella kept some standards intact and maintained a better reputation. Moving back into a market that has some degree of admissions standards will also put it back into competition with regional public universities that will always look better in terms of cost. And that’s to say nothing of how Phoenix’s investors might respond to a new approach that willingly puts quality ahead of short-term profits.

Still, even Phoenix’s diminished size is more than 200,000 students. And much like tobacco companies, it is actively pursuing opportunities in foreign markets. The company is not in great shape, but it is probably not in a tailspin yet.

It’s the bottom of the publicly traded college market that should be most worried about Phoenix’s repudiation of the “take everyone” model. Corporations like ITT or the Education Management Corporation are already fighting to stay in business and do not have the cash to sustain the large student losses that would come with a willingness to say no to unprepared applicants. And moving upmarket would mean completely changing their business, not just ending some bad experiments.

John Sperling, the University of Phoenix’s founder, died last August at the age of the 93. During his time as the head of Phoenix he showed that the right combination of factors could drive a university to a size and scale far beyond what anyone had previously imagined. But if Phoenix and the rest of the for-profit sector want to rise again, they need to recognize the truth: It was Sterling’s original vision, not the gargantuan Wall-Street-backed monster it became, that was the right model.

Ben Miller is the Senior Director for Postsecondary Education at the Center for American Progress.

Latest Cafe

Notable Replies

  1. Euthanasia will be found to be the best ‘for-profit education’ outcome.

  2. America ought to do what Germany has done with higher education. Making higher leaning less accessible to those who cannot be full time students is yet another instance of the people being kept ignorant while Wall Street profits from both greed and stupidity. America seems to me to be bound and determined to place itself at the bottom of the list of industrialized nations in so many areas. People who are usually the victims of such an outcome wonder why their formally “Great” Nation has fallen so far over time. Meanwhile our political “leadership” makes a great noise about how “America will be great again.” and other such political rubbish. The truth is simply this:
    If America makes no investment in education for her people, all her people, American “Leadership” is a relic of the past, and no amount of flowery words will restore her former preeminence. But within this truth, there is another which must be faced. There is a greasy layer of “Leaders” in America who have come upon the proven notion that a people kept ignorant are easier to lie to, and are, therefore more easily led.
    Imagine America as a nation of well-educated, well-rounded, and more inquiring people.That is undoubtedly the worst nightmare one can imagine for those who reap all manner of obscene “profit” (and not in money alone) from the continued and blissful ignorance of a once “Great” Nation.
    Anything, or anyone who endangers that “profit” must be eliminated. So here we are. The education offered at schools like this constitutes a threat to the ignorance of the population. Kill the school, kill the education, feed the ignorance, and everything will be just fine, won’t it? Yeah, sure it will. For everyone but the people, that is.

  3. Vocational education is very important (way more important than the “everyone should go to 4-year college!” crowd can comprehend), but the way these diploma mills and financial aid fraud rings work runs contrary to what this country needs.

  4. I believe I can identify the heart of the problem:

    In 1995, the university’s parent company went public…

  5. I haven’t really looking into the history of for profit colleges and just assumed they way they are now is how they always were. But reading the article they way they started sounds like something that would be nice if they could get back to. Having been through a 4 year BS program and graduated by the skin of my teeth at a college that started as a land grant, I can appreciate the concept that some people aren’t traditional 4 year degree material, but could use some vocational related higher education beyond HS.

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

43 more replies

Participants

Avatar for system1 Avatar for booch221 Avatar for mahniah Avatar for anniew Avatar for scavok Avatar for peter_schwartz Avatar for erikthered Avatar for doctora Avatar for jonathang Avatar for jep07 Avatar for mcgloinm Avatar for chammy Avatar for thepsyker Avatar for pshipkey Avatar for whiteboar Avatar for gr Avatar for longtimeobserver Avatar for jeffrey Avatar for dickweed Avatar for reggid Avatar for klw57 Avatar for msedlis Avatar for firewing2 Avatar for giant_monster_gamera

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Associate Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: