writing assignment team leadership development

The Massification of Higher Education

Michelle L. Fanslau

Argosy University Comment by Michelle: Your papers should read Florida SouthWestern State College. Be sure the W in Western is capitalized.

October 19, 2011 Comment by [email protected]: The date is always in this format. Never use rd, th, st or any of these formats: 10/19/11 10/19/2011 10.19.11

Tips:

· Because scholarly writing should not have contractions, there are none of these in my paper. For example, don’t, can’t, won’t, which should be do not, cannot, and will not respectively.

· Because a scholarly paper should be in third person only, none of these words should appear in your paper:

First person: I, we, me, us, my, mine, our, ours

Second person: you, your, yours

Use the “find” feature in Word to make sure that none of these words appear. If they do, you must reword the sentence into third person.

The Massification of Higher Education

The National Center for Education Statistics (n.d.) reports a total of 4,474 postsecondary education institutions in the United States in 2009. Of the 4,474 total institutions, 1,671 are public institutions and 2,803 are private institutions; with 1,181 of the private institutions distinguished as for-profit. Enrollment totals in the fall of 2009 were 14.8 million for public institutions and 5.6 million for private institutions with 1.8 million of private institution enrollments going to for-profit institutions. Even though non-profit institution enrollments are significantly higher than for-profit institutions, the growth of for-profit higher education institutions and enrollments announces the overall topic for this literature review. Comment by [email protected]: In-text citation.

The research topic explored in this review is the increase in the number of for-profit higher education institutions in the United States and the implications of that growth for the strategic marketing plans of non-profit higher education institutions. According to Breneman, Pusser, and Turner (2006), Reports from market analysts have evoked images of an imminent collision between efficient, technologically innovative, well-capitalized edu-corporations, and a host of tradition-bound, inefficient, revenue-challenged, postsecondary institutions. With the "imminent collision" predicted by Breneman, Pusser, and Turner (2006), this literature review will focus on the research question: What can non-profit institutions learn from the marketing strategies of for-profit institutions to increase enrollment (market share)? Comment by [email protected]: In-text citation. Comment by [email protected]: Notice there is no extra space between paragraphs.

The significance of this literature review is the focus on the problem that non-profit higher education institutions are losing enrollments, or market share, to for-profit, higher education institutions. Furthermore, this literature review will explore which factors of the marketing mix (i.e. product, price, place, and promotion) lead to initial enrollment decisions at proprietary higher education institutions. Comment by [email protected]: This is the thesis statement.

For-Profit Growth Comment by [email protected]: Notice that the heading is flush with the left margin, in bold and title case.

The number of proprietary schools has grown exponentially in the United States in response to mass demand and this trend has had a global impact with far-reaching implications for students and the higher education industry. There are multiple sources discussing the increase in the number of institutions and enrollments in for-profit higher education institutions in the United States (Morey, 2004, Chung, 2008, Beaver, 2009, Pluskota, 2011). Non-profit public and private universities are now competing for enrollments with what Kinser (2006) claimed is the third sector in higher education, the for-profit institution. The competition to meet enrollment goals will increase as more for-profit institutions are established. In a report prepared for the UNESCO 2009 World Conference on Higher Education, Altbach, Reisberg, and Rumbley (2009) discussed the “massification” of higher education as a response to demand in knowledge-based economies, and Akonkwa (2009) also used the term "massification" to describe the increase of non-traditional students enrolling in higher education today. Comment by [email protected]: In-text citation. Comment by [email protected]: Notice that the period goes after the parenthetical citation. Comment by [email protected]: In-text citation. Comment by [email protected]: In-text citation. Comment by [email protected]: Another in-text citation within the same sentence because the second portion of the sentence comes from another source.

Morey (2004) explained that for-profit schools have been educating students for more than 300 years and that the number of these institutions will continue to grow. Beaver (2009) reiterates the long-term existence of for-profit higher education and its historical significance to train non-traditional students. Furthermore, Beaver's (2009) contribution to the literature on the increase in for-profit institutions is significant because he explores historical and contemporary issues explaining the growth of for-profit higher education institutions. For example, Beaver (2009) expresses the push for student enrollments in for-profit institutions as a requirement of CEOs and owners to increase profits and what he calls the "...compatibility of education with capitalism..."(59).

Credentialing

In their discussion on strategic problems and pending extinction for some business schools, Tullis and Camey (2007) mentioned that for many years traditional university personnel claimed that for-profit schools were diploma mills. However, many for-profit schools have met these challenges by becoming accredited and attracting the increasing adult student population seeking non-traditional degree options in the U.S. Beaver (2009) mentioned that for-profit institutions are matching the practices of non-profit counterparts by offering the same or similar credentials of their institutions and programs. Leading the way in offering degree options for students on an international scale, institutions like The University of Phoenix, DeVry University, and Jones International University have attained regional accreditation and made higher education a more competitive industry both in the US and globally (Tullis & Camey, 2007).

Financial Implications

The competition to meet enrollment goals will increase as more for-profit institutions are established. The limits on government funding and restrictions on tuition increases for non-profit colleges and universities fuels the emergence of for-profit schools. Furthermore, the option to purchase stock in a growing industry and the tax revenues generated by proprietary institutions continues to expand the viability of these institutions as industry stabilizers.

Beaver (2009) announced federal funding as a driver in the increase of for-profit higher education institutions and how "student-aid helped make the contemporary for-profit institution" (57). From an investment perspective, for-profit higher education institutions are a viable source of income. In 2004, Morgan Stanley created an industry analysis and recommendations for investing in for-profit higher education institutions. Specifically, the positives for investment stability in higher education include rapid growth, an under-penetrated market, low cyclicality, and high barriers to entry. Comment by [email protected]: I was permitted to use direct quotes. This class is not. Comment by [email protected]: In-text citation.

Corporate Owners

Beyond the implication of for-profit institutions as a driver for investment opportunities, there is another monetary advantage stemming from these institutions. One of the more important factors to note is the designation that for-profit means that the earnings of these corporate institutions are subject to federal income tax. From the government perspective and tax dollars collected and needed, especially in a weak economy, the lobbying opportunities for proprietary schools is a relevant economic and financial factor (Beaver, 2009). Comment by [email protected]: Parenthetical citation with the period following the final parentheses.

A common author adding to the literature on for-profit higher education, Kinser (2007) discussed corporate ownership of higher education institutions from a historical and contemporary perspective. Analyzing existing data, Kinser (2007) found that corporate ownership of education institutions is "big business" and that growth strategies for corporate institutions focuses on acquisitions to increase enrollments. Lechuga (2008) reiterates the "big business" aspect with an introductory excerpt in his article that discussed stockholder expectations, profits, and investors as "...quite a foreign thing for most people in academia" (p. 287).

Competition

In an article discussing whether for profit universities were a fad or a solution to the higher education industry, Orchowski (2008), indicated that for-profit institutions have provided the competition that is needed in the higher education industry. Specifically, problematic in the industry is the government funding needed to establish and run a non-profit university that has encouraged competition by for-profits which derive funding primarily from tuition.

Sharkey and Beeman (2008) apply the factors of corporate hypercompetition to MBA programs. Hypercompetition characteristics affecting MBA programs are the increases in market entrants, accessibility to a more diverse and expanded market for students, globalization of MBA programs and students seeking cost effectiveness in the selection of programs, and the technological advances that have accelerated competition in program markets. Sharkey and Beeman (2008) explain how for-profit institutions will grow and their offerings of MBA programs will expand in response to market demands, corporate knowledge of business practices, and technological advances.

The literature specifying the increase in for-profit, higher education institutions is substantial and thoroughly documents the emergence of these institutions in the United States. With the increase in for-profit institutions and the competitive factors, the next portion of this literature review will investigate which factors of the marketing mix (i.e. product, price, place, and promotion) lead to initial enrollment decisions at proprietary higher education institutions.

Marketing Factors

Akonkwa (2009) studied the marketing orientation of higher education institutions and recommended that the industry should focus marketing initiatives on financial factors, competition, and quality. Specifically, Akonkwa (2009) studied customer and competitor orientation, inter-functional coordination, and responsiveness as characteristics of marketing orientation and its application to higher education. Kinser's (2006) explains how the University of Phoenix has become representative of today's for-profit education institution. According to Kinser (2006), the University of Phoenix is new and expanding, has substantial financial resources, and it is unconventional in its administration of its education model with programs meeting the needs of a diverse student and workforce. Lechuga (2008) further supports a change in the higher education industry landscape with for-profit colleges operating procedures mirroring corporate-based practices. Comment by [email protected]: There are multiple in-text citations in this paragraph because I summarized topics into my own words from multiple sources.

Product Comment by [email protected]: Headings signify the next topic to be discussed. It is rare to have a question as a heading and it should be avoided at all costs.

Other implications of the effect of proprietary institutions on the higher education industry include flexibility in admission criteria and transfer of credit opportunities. In a study examining the predictors of transfer to for-profit institutions, Sheldon (2009) discovered that students were more likely to transfer to for profit institutions because there is a perception that proprietary schools are less selective and more flexible for students who wish to attend part time. In addition, some of these institutions will award transfer credits for military experience, professional and life experiences, and credits for passing scores on tests such as CLEP and DANTES.

In a qualitative study, Adrignola (2010) identified several reasons why students chose to enroll in the for-profit, higher education institution they attended. Adrignola (2010) found that students selected the institution primarily because it offered the degree program that students were looking for and the option to tailor the program to meet their career goals. Furthermore, students were not required to take entrance exams like the GMAT or GRE. Other product influences identified in the study were the option to attend part-time, to complete a degree in an accelerated format, and the multiple semester start options. Chung (2008) outlined that most for-profit institutions offer only a handful of programs specific to their missions with primarily certificate programs and business and education programs.

Price

The cost of college tuition and the overall costs of attending college remains a focus for most students. With regard to for-profit institutions, it is commonly understood that the cost of attending these institutions is much more than it is to attend a non-profit institution. It is in the area of the price of attending a for-profit, higher education institution that the literature falls short. Many studies focusing on for-profit institutions discuss the importance of costs as a factor in enrollment decisions and student debt after graduation (Adrignola, 2010, Orchowski, 2008, Pluskota, 2011, Chung, 2008). Yet, the price of attending for-profit institutions has not emerged as a significant variable in the literature included in this review. In other words, it is as if assumptions are made that the cost is relevant to college choice, but understood and accepted to be higher in for-profit institutions. Chung (2008) states that "It is difficult, however, to discuss the cost of attending a for-profit vs. non-profit college to a student because the 'list' tuition price does not fully reflect the true cost of attendance for a for-profit student" (24). Hall (2010) recommends further research on the economic impact of the costs of obtaining a degree from a for-profit institution. It is in the absence of recent studies investigating the effect of the costs associated with attending for-profit colleges that pronounces a gap in the literature. Comment by [email protected]: Multiple authors in the same parenthetical citation because the same information was expressed by all of these authors. Comment by [email protected]: Remember, no direct quotes are permitted for this class. Comment by [email protected]: A true scholar will provide other perspectives even if it does not agree with what the author (in this case me) wants to express.

Place and Promotion

The literature is clear that for-profit colleges have discovered a marketing niche with regard to the distribution aspect of the marketing mix. Specifically, the demographical information pertaining to students who attend for-profit, higher education institutions is significantly represented in recent studies.

Chung's (2008) study is a relevant addition to the literature regarding the demographic characteristics of students who attend for-profit institutions. What Chung (2008) identified is that students who attend for-profit colleges and universities are more likely to be non-traditional (i.e. older than 25), female, a minority, single or a single parent, have a GED, in a lower-income bracket, and are seeking a certificate rather than a degree. A relevant finding in the literature is the rise of African-American students attending for-profit institutions (Chung, 2008, Hall 2010, van Ommeren, 2010).

Hall (2010) equally adds relevance to the statistical data of African-American students attending for-profit institutions. Hall (2010) studied the academic and social experiences, academic success, and impediments of African-American doctoral students attending for-profit institutions. What Hall (2010) found in the study was that race or racism was not a factor in their doctoral experience because they could "be invisible in the online environment" (157). Furthermore, flexible admissions processes were an advantage, and students would pay more to attend and accept higher debt to allow for the flexibility they need to complete their doctoral studies. Hall (2010) provides several recommendations for further research important to this literature review. Specifically interesting is the recommendation that traditional universities that do not require standardized testing as an admission criteria should promote this option to attract students who feel that attending a for-profit institution is their only option in this regard.

Equally important with regard to distribution of educational programs is the actual location of the college or university. It is in the context of location that online degree programs are relevant to the higher education industry. Adrignola (2010) studied location as a factor that affected initial enrollment in a for-profit institution. Distance education options were found to be relevant to the enrollment decision even if students resided within a reasonable distance to the institution. Specifically, students wanted the option to attend online if their schedules did not allow them to attend classes on campus. Kinser (2006) adds to the literature on enrollment in online programs by indicating that between 1999 and 2003, the University of Phoenix enrollment grew by 70,000 students in its online programs.

As a significant force of distribution, the descriptions of the proliferation of non-profit, higher education institutions in the literature are relevant to this review. Kinser (2006) described this proliferation with his discussion of the University of Phoenix. The University of Phoenix had more than 230,000 students in 2006, and 20 percent of the market share for for-profit institutions. Moreover, the University of Phoenix had more than 170 locations in the U.S. in comparison to only six other schools that had more than 20 campuses. More importantly, it is a strategic goal of Phoenix to continue expanding its enrollment reach.

Adrignola (2010) conducted a qualitative study focusing on the factors that encouraged students to enroll in graduate programs at a for-profit institution and found that "For profit entities now shape the future of higher education by reacting to the needs of students as customers" (2). One of the significant findings in the study by Adrignola (2010) was student perceptions of customer service and that "...the student views these services just like the purchases of any other goods or services" (174). What was identified as problematic in this study was students' dissatisfaction with financial aid, obtaining their books, billing, and rules that were unknown or hidden. It is in these identified deficiencies where customer service emerges as a possible promotional factor for higher education institutions.

There are several, older trade magazines that feature editorial articles expressing dissatisfaction with the promotional practices of for-profit institutions. However, with regard to promotional factors of the marketing mix relevant to for-profit higher education institutions, there is a negligent amount of empirical research on this factor of the marketing mix.

This literature review focused on the increase in the number of proprietary higher education institutions in the United States and the implications of that growth for the strategic marketing plans of non-profit higher education institutions The more prominent characteristics emerging in the literature include the exponential growth, credentialing initiatives, corporate ownership factors, and financial implications of for-profit education institutions. A shortfall identified in this review is the minimal amount of empirical studies focusing on the economic impact and cost considerations for students who attend for-profit, higher education institutions. Even though non-profit institutions rely heavily on federal and state funding and the success of their foundations, the full cost of instruction commonly exceeds government funding and foundation supplements. Yet, some may assume that it is in the shortcomings of funding for non-profit institutions that promotes the formation of for-profit institutions in a capitalist society and the lack of empirical research proving or negating this assumption is problematic.

The significance of this literature review is the focus on the problem that non-profit higher education institutions are losing enrollments, or market share, to for-profit, higher education institutions. This literature review investigated which factors of the marketing mix (i.e. product, price, place, and promotion) lead to initial enrollment decisions at for-profit higher education institutions. One prominent characteristic that evolved from this review is the demographic characteristics of the "common" for-profit student. From a marketing perspective, the fact that older students, minorities, and lower-income students have emerged as a marketing niche for for-profit institutions is relevant to non-profit institutions as well.

The competition to meet enrollment goals will increase as more for-profit institutions are established. The limits on government funding and restrictions on tuition increases for non-profit colleges and universities fuels the emergence of proprietary schools. Furthermore, the option to purchase stock in a growing industry and the tax revenues generated by proprietary institutions continues to expand the viability of these institutions as economic stabilizers.

In addition to the evident monetary issues, non-profit colleges and universities should conduct environmental scanning when developing strategic marketing plans. There are still competitive advantages and market niches that may be identified beyond the sales pitch of low tuition costs and Ivy League recognition for non-profit institutions. For those proponents of non-profit colleges and universities as a higher standard in the education industry, matching the student services, flexibility in admissions criteria, and innovative degree and course offerings that for-profit schools offer should become the focus. Comment by [email protected]: Conclusion which includes a brief summary of what was discussed in the narrative.

References Comment by [email protected]: The “References” page always starts on a new page. Also, note that there are no additional spaces between one reference listing and the next.

Akonkwa, D.B.M. (2009). Is market orientation a relevant strategy for higher education institutions? International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 1(3), 311-333. doi:10.1108/17566690911004230 Comment by [email protected]: Note that APA style no longer uses title case. Comment by [email protected]: For articles from the library databases, include the doi.

Altbach, P.G., Reisberg, L. & Rumbley, L.E. (2009). Trends in global higher education: Tracking an academic revolution. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco. org/images/0018/001831/183168e.pdf Comment by [email protected]: Even though title case is no longer used, the first word following a colon in the title is always capitalized. Comment by [email protected]: Note that a retrieved date is no longer used. Also, the active hyperlinks are removed.

Adrignola, M. N. (2010). Factors that affect initial enrollment of working adult, graduate students. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/ docview/502129096

Beaver, W. (2009). For-profit higher education: A social and historical analysis. Sociological Viewpoints, 25(10600876), 53-73. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/ 221242597 Comment by [email protected]: This is the title of the periodical. It is in title case and italics.

Breneman, D. W., Pusser, B., & Turner, S. E. (2006). Earnings from Learning: The Rise of For-profit Universities. State University of New York Press. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Chung, A. S. (2008). For-profit colleges---an opportunity for under-served? ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/89115561

Hall, J. (2010). African American doctoral students at for-profit colleges and universities: A critical race theory exploration. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/762372664 Comment by [email protected]: Note that the second and subsequent lines for a reference have a ½ inch hanging indent.

Kinser, K. (2007). Dimensions of corporate ownership in for-profit higher education. Review of Higher Education, 30(3), 217-222,224-235,237-245,1. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/220850711

Kinser, K. (2006). What Phoenix doesn't teach us about for-profit higher education. Change, 38(4), 24-24-29. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/208049234 Comment by [email protected]: Even though title case is no longer used, a proper noun (person, place, or thing) is always capitalized.

Lechuga, V. M. (2008). Assessment, knowledge, and customer service: Contextualizing faculty work at for-profit colleges and universities. Review of Higher Education, 31(3), 287-307. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/220850463

Morey, A. (2004). Globalization and the emergence of for-profit higher education. Higher Education, 48(1), 131-50.

National Center for Education Statistics (n.d.). Fall enrollment and number of degree-granting institutions, by control and affiliation of institution: Selected years, 1980 through 2009. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_205.asp Comment by [email protected]: In this case, the author is an organization. The (n.d.) means that no copyright date was available.

Orchowski, P. S. (2008, Sep 22). Are for-profit universities a fad or the solution to higher ed woes? The Hispanic Outlook in Higher Education, 18(25), 37-37. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/219227150

Pluskota, J. P. (2011). The rise of for-profit education alternatives in central Texas: A comparative study of satisfaction between competing programs using the student satisfaction inventory(TM). Workforce Education and Development. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/

876607228

Sharkey, T. W., & Beeman, D. R. (2008). On the edge of hypercompetition in higher education: The case of the MBA. On the Horizon, 16(3), 143-151. doi:10.1108/ 10748120810901440

Sheldon, C. (2009). Predictors of transfer to 4-year, for-profit institutions. Community College Review, 37(1), 34-51.  doi: 1791886751.

Tullis, K., & Camey, J. (2007). Strategic implications of specialized business school accreditation: End of the line for some business education programs? Journal of Education for Business, 83(1), 45-51.  doi: 1379297051.

van Ommeren, Alice C. (2010). New transfer partners: California community colleges and private for-profit four-year institutions. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/734766613 Comment by [email protected]: This is not capitalized because this portion of the author’s last name is not capitalized.