POSTSECONDARY 

EDUCATION

Student Outcomes 

Vary at For-Profit, 

Nonprofit, and Public 

Schools

Report to Congressional Requesters

December 2011

GAO-12-143

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
Page i GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

Letter 1 

Limited Research Suggests that For-Profit School Students 

Generally Have Different Outcomes than Nonprofit or Public 

School Students 5

For-Profit School Graduates Generally Had Lower Pass Rates than 

Graduates from Other Schools on Licensing Exams We 

Reviewed 7

Agency Comments 8

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 12

Appendix II List of Studies and Ongoing Research Included in Our Literature 

Review 24

Appendix III Detailed Analysis of Licensing Exam Pass Rates 26

Appendix IV Briefing Slides 53

Appendix V GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 91

Tables

Table 1: Studies Included in GAO’s Report, By Student Outcomes 24

Table 2: RN (Bachelor’s Degrees): Number of Programs and First 

Time Test Takers, by Sector 26

Table 3: RN (Bachelor’s Degree): Student Pass Rate and Mean 

Program Pass Rate, by Sector 27

Table 4: RN (Associate’s Degree): Number of Programs and First 

Time Test Takers, by Sector 28

Table 5: RN (Associate’s Degree): Student Pass Rate and Mean 

Program Pass Rate, by Sector 28

Table 6: LPN: Number of Programs and First Time Test Takers, by 

Sector 29

Contents
Page ii GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

Table 7: LPN: Student Pass Rate and Mean Program Pass Rate, by 

Sector 30

Table 8: Radiography: Number of Programs and Test Takers, by 

Sector 32

Table 9: Radiography: Student Pass Rate and Mean Program Pass 

Rates, by Sector 32

Table 10: EMT: Number of Programs and Test Takers, by Sector 34

Table 11: EMT: Student Pass Rate and Mean Program Pass Rates, 

by Sector 34

Table 12: Paramedic: Number of Programs and Test Takers, by 

Sector 36

Table 13: Paramedic: Student Pass Rate and Mean Program Pass 

Rates, by Sector 36

Table 14: Surgical Technologist: Number of Programs and Test 

Takers, by Sector 38

Table 15: Surgical Technologist: Student Pass Rate and Mean 

Program Pass Rates, by Sector 38

Table 16: Massage Therapist: Number of Programs and Test 

Takers, by Sector 39

Table 17: Massage Therapist: Student Pass Rate and Mean Program 

Pass Rates, by Sector 40

Table 18: Law: Number of Programs and Test Takers, by Sector 43

Table 19: Law: Student Pass Rate and Mean Program Pass Rates, by 

Sector 43

Table 20: Cosmetology: Number of Programs and Test Takers, by 

Sector 45

Table 21: Cosmetology: Student Pass Rate and Mean Program Pass 

Rate, by Sector 46

Table 22: Funeral Directors: Number of Programs and Test Takers, 

by Sector (All Programs) 49

Table 23: Funeral Directors: Number of Programs and Test Takers, 

by Sector (Associate’s Programs Only) 50

Table 24: Funeral Directors: Student Pass Rate and Mean Program 

Pass Rates, by Sector (All Programs) 50

Table 25: Funeral Directors: Student Pass Rate and Mean Program 

Pass Rates, by Sector (Associate’s Programs Only) 51
Page iii GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

Figures

Figure 1: Nursing: Number of Programs by Pass Rate Range, 2008-

2010 31

Figure 2: Radiography: Number of Programs by Pass Rate Range, 

2008-2010 33

Figure 3: EMT Basic: Number of Programs by Pass Rate Range, 

2008-2010 35

Figure 4: Paramedic: Number of Programs by Pass Rate Range, 

2008-2010 37

Figure 5: Surgical Technologists: Number of Programs by Pass 

Rate Range, 2010 39

Figure 6: Massage Therapist: Number of Programs by Pass Rate 

Range, 2008-2010 42

Figure 7: Law: Number of Programs by Pass Rate Range, 2008-2010 44

Figure 8: Cosmetology: Number of Programs by Pass Rate Range, 

2008-2010 49

Figure 9: Number of Programs by Pass Rate Range on Sciences 

Section, 2008-2010 (Associate’s Programs Only) 52
Page iv GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

Abbreviations

ABFSE American Board of Funeral Service Education

BPS Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study

CIP Classification of Instructional Programs

Education Department of Education

EMT Emergency Medical Technician

ERIC Education Resources Information Center

IPEDS Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System

LPN Licensed Practical Nurse

NPSAS National Postsecondary Student Aid Survey

NSLDS National Student Loan Data System

NTIS National Technical Information Service

OIG Office of Inspector General

RN Registered Nurse

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

December 7, 2011

Congressional Requesters

Institutions of higher education, including for-profit, nonprofit, and public 

schools, receive billions of dollars each year from the Department of 

Education (Education) to help students pay for school.1 In the 2009-2010 

school year, Education provided $132 billion in grants and loans to 

students under federal student aid programs, up from $49 billion in the 

2001-2002 school year.2 However, relatively little information is available 

about the quality of education being provided by these schools.3

Student characteristics are also important to consider when comparing 

educational outcomes at schools in different sectors (for-profit, nonprofit, 

and public).

Measuring the quality of educational programs (i.e., how much knowledge 

or skill students gain) is difficult. Because few direct measures are 

available, indirect outcome measures, such as graduation and student 

loan default rates, are often used. Although no single outcome can be 

used to fully measure something as complex as educational quality, 

looking at multiple outcome measures (e.g., graduation rates, pass rates 

on licensing exams, employment outcomes, and student loan default 

rates) can shed light on the quality of education provided by schools.

4

 

1

For the purposes of this report, we refer to private for-profit schools as for-profit schools 

and private nonprofit schools as nonprofit schools.

Available data indicate that for-profit schools enroll a higher 

proportion of low-income, minority, and nontraditional students who face 

challenges that can affect their educational outcomes. Students with 

these characteristics tend to have less positive educational outcomes 

2

These programs are authorized by Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as 

amended. For the purposes of this report, we define federal student aid programs as 

financial aid programs authorized under Title IV of the Higher Education Act. Federal 

student aid spending data beginning in the 2001-2002 school year are more reliable than 

data from previous years. 

3

The federal government relies on accrediting agencies recognized by Education to 

ensure educational quality, but accreditors collect varying types of data on student 

outcomes. Individual schools may also collect data on a variety of student outcomes.

4

The term “student characteristics” refers to demographic characteristics such as gender, 

race, and income, as well as to other characteristics, such as prior education and delayed 

postsecondary school enrollment.

 
 

Page 2 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

than other students for a number of reasons. For example, students who 

are low-income, minority, or older generally have lower graduation rates 

than other students regardless of sector.5

To respond to your interest in student outcomes at different types of 

schools, this report addresses the following questions.

Consequently, student 

outcomes at different types of schools can be associated with differences 

in student characteristics, as well as school type. Accounting for 

differences in student characteristics as much as possible allows for more 

meaningful comparisons between types of schools and a better 

understanding of the school’s role in producing student outcomes. This 

can be done in different ways, such as using statistical models or 

comparing outcomes for similar groups of students or graduates.

1. What does research show about graduation rates, employment 

outcomes, student loan debts, and default rates for students at forprofit schools compared to those at nonprofit and public schools, 

taking differences in student characteristics into account?

2. How do pass rates on licensing exams for selected occupations 

compare among graduates of for-profit, nonprofit, and public schools?

We used the following methodologies to develop our findings (see app. I 

for a detailed discussion of our scope and methodologies). We began by 

contacting representatives from several higher education associations 

representing schools in all three sectors to obtain their perspectives on 

key issues discussed in this report. To identify comparative research on 

outcomes that controls for student characteristics, we conducted a 

literature search and rigorously reviewed the data and methodologies 

used by external researchers and only reported findings that were based 

on sound methods and reliable data.

• For most outcomes we reviewed, we relied primarily on studies using 

data from Education’s Beginning Postsecondary Students 

Longitudinal Study (BPS), which tracks a nationally representative 

sample of first-time students for 6 years. BPS graduation rates are 

 

5

Research shows that being a racial or ethnic minority may be associated with less 

positive educational outcomes in part because certain minorities are more likely to have 

risk factors (such as having a parent who did not finish high school) that can affect 

educational achievement.
 

Page 3 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

more representative of first-time students than graduation rates from 

other data sources because they include part-time and transfer 

students. BPS also collects self-reported information on earnings and 

employment status, as well as extensive data on student 

characteristics. 

• Some of the graduation rate studies included in our review used data 

from Education’s Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System 

(IPEDS). IPEDS captures detailed enrollment data from all schools 

participating in federal student aid programs; however, IPEDS 

graduation rates include only full-time, first-time students and exclude 

a significant number of other students (e.g., those who attend parttime or transfer to another school). Because of this limitation, we gave 

greater weight in our report to studies using BPS data to calculate 

graduation rates; however, studies using IPEDS data had similar 

results.

• Studies in our review that analyzed debt levels used data from 

Education’s National Postsecondary Student Aid Survey (NPSAS), 

which collects detailed data on financial aid and student loans for a 

large, nationally representative sample of students.

• One study in our review analyzed school default rates using data from 

the National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS), which is 

Education’s central database for federal student aid loans and grants.

We found a relatively small number of studies that compared student 

outcomes across sectors and accounted for differences in student 

characteristics (see app. II for the list of studies included in our literature 

review). This body of research also has certain limitations. For example, 

while BPS has some of the best available data on outcomes and student 

characteristics, it does not represent the experience of more recent 

students.6

 

6

Because the most recent cohort of students started during the 2003-2004 school year, 

BPS does not include outcomes for students who enrolled more recently.

Further, while two studies in our review conducted regression 

analyses that account for multiple student characteristics simultaneously 

(which allows for a more rigorous comparison), other studies analyzed 

subgroups of students, accounting for a single characteristic at a time.

Despite these limitations, we believe that the studies included in our 
 

Page 4 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

review provide insight on the comparative outcomes of students attending 

different types of schools.

To compare the performance of graduates from for-profit, nonprofit, and 

public schools on professional licensing exams, we analyzed pass rates 

for selected exams for first-time test takers.7

Because demographic information on test takers was generally not 

available, directly controlling for the characteristics of test takers in our 

analyses was not possible. However, because our analysis of licensing 

exam pass rates focuses on outcomes for program graduates, it may 

partially mitigate the effect of differences in student characteristics on 

exam results since some characteristics, such as race, age, and income, 

are associated with lower graduation rates.

For this analysis, we focused 

on schools that participate in federal student aid programs. We selected 

occupations in which passing an exam was generally required and 

significant work experience was not required prior to taking the exam. We 

also used Education data to select occupations that (1) had programs in 

multiple sectors, including the for-profit sector, and (2) had sufficiently 

large numbers of students graduating from these programs. When 

possible, we used exams offered by national organizations to maximize 

the number of states in our analysis. We excluded from our analyses 

states that did not require the exam in an occupation. For occupations 

that use state or multiple exams, we used Education data to select four 

states in which the numbers of graduates and the distribution of 

graduates across sectors provided the best chance to detect any 

statistically significant differences that might exist between sectors. 

Results for individual states are not generalizable to other states and it is 

possible that sector comparisons in other states would show different 

results or would differ as to whether the results were statistically 

significant.

We assessed the reliability of the data from each test included in our 

analyses by interviewing representatives knowledgeable about the data, 

reviewing relevant data and related documentation, and conducting 

additional analyses. We determined that these exam data were 

sufficiently reliable for the purpose of comparing pass rates across 

 

7

We use the term “licensing exam” to refer to exams that are required to work in a specific 

occupation, even though some of these exams are technically certification exams. 

Differences between sectors are statistically significant unless otherwise noted. 
 

Page 5 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

sectors. For more detailed results from our analyses of licensing exam 

pass rates, see appendix III.

We conducted our work from November 2010 to December 2011 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence 

obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings. On November 10, 

2011, we briefed cognizant congressional staff on the results of this study 

and this report formally conveys the information provided during these 

briefings. (See app. IV for the slides we used to brief the requesters.)

The small number of available studies that accounted for selected student 

characteristics, such as gender, race, or income, suggests that student 

outcomes vary by type of school. Student outcomes include graduation 

rates, employment outcomes, student loan debt, and default rates.

Two studies show that for-profit school students had higher graduation 

rates for certificate programs, similar graduation rates for associate’s 

degree programs, and lower graduation rates for bachelor’s degree 

programs than students at nonprofit and public schools.8

 

8

We reported graduation rate findings for certificate, associate’s degree and bachelor’s 

degree programs from two studies that used BPS data. For bachelor’s degree programs, 

we also reviewed several studies using IPEDS data, which had similar findings. The term 

“graduation rate” refers to students who complete a higher education program and receive 

a degree, diploma, certificate, or other formal award. 

For example, 

one study found that 36 percent of low-income students who started at 

for-profit schools completed a certificate, compared to 6 percent at 2-year 

Limited Research 

Suggests that ForProfit School 

Students Generally 

Have Different 

Outcomes than 

Nonprofit or Public 

School Students

Graduation Rates
 

Page 6 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

public schools.9 In contrast, 3 percent of low-income students who started 

at for-profit schools completed a bachelor’s degree, compared to 49 

percent at 4-year public schools and 13 percent at 2-year public 

schools.10

An ongoing study suggests that students who started at for-profit schools 

had similar annual earnings, but higher rates of unemployment compared 

to students who started at nonprofit and public schools. For example, 

students who started at for-profit schools during the 2003-2004 school 

year and were no longer enrolled after 6 years were more likely to have 

been unemployed for more than 3 months, compared to students who 

started at nonprofit and public schools.

Three studies show that a higher proportion of bachelor’s degree 

recipients from for-profit schools took out student loans and that they 

generally had higher total student loan debt than bachelor’s degree 

recipients from nonprofit and public schools. For example, one study 

shows that, among low-income students who graduated in 2007-2008, 

the percentage who borrowed was greater at for-profit schools (99 

percent) than at nonprofit and public schools (83 and 72 percent, 

respectively).

Two studies show that for-profit schools have higher default rates than 4-

year public schools, but the results are mixed when comparing for-profit 

schools to other types of schools. One ongoing study shows that for-profit 

 

9

This study does not differentiate between 2- and 4-year for-profit schools, nor does it 

control for the type of program a student starts in or whether a student transfers to a 

higher degree program. Graduation rates are for the highest degree attained within 6 

years. As a result, students who start in a certificate program and complete an associate’s 

degree are included in the associate’s degree graduation rate. Similarly, students who 

start in an associate’s degree program and complete a bachelor’s degree will be included 

in the bachelor’s degree graduation rate. BPS data show that few, if any, students at forprofit and nonprofit schools start in certificate programs and complete an associate’s 

degree within 6 years, while a small percentage of students at public schools do so. 

10We included 2-year public schools in our analysis because some students who started 

at these schools may have transferred to a 4-year school to complete a bachelor’s degree 

program. BPS data show that few, if any, students at for-profit schools start in associate’s 

degree programs and complete a bachelor’s degree program within 6 years, while a small 

percentage of students at nonprofit and public schools do so.

Employment Outcomes

Student Loan Debt

Default Rates
 

Page 7 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

schools had a higher proportion of students default on their student loans 

than 4-year nonprofit schools and 2-year nonprofit and public schools, 

while the other study did not find any statistically significant differences 

between for-profit schools and these other types of schools.11

On 9 of the 10 licensing exams we reviewed, graduates of for-profit 

schools generally had lower pass rates over the 2008-2010 period.

The nine licensing exams for which graduates of for-profit schools 

generally had lower pass rates were for Registered Nurses (RN), 

Licensed Practical Nurses (LPN), Radiographers, Emergency Medical 

Technicians (EMT), Paramedics, Surgical Technologists, Massage 

Therapists, Lawyers, and Cosmetologists. On some exams, the 

differences across sectors were statistically significant, but relatively 

small. For example, 85 percent of graduates earning a bachelor’s degree 

from for-profit nursing programs passed the RN exam, compared to 87 

percent of such graduates from nonprofit schools. While we were unable 

to calculate overall pass rates on the 10th exam (for Funeral Directors), 

separate analyses of the two sections of the exam suggest that graduates 

of for-profit schools had similar or better pass rates than graduates of 

nonprofit and public schools.12

 

11One study used NSLDS data to calculate default rates and IPEDS enrollment data to 

control for selected student characteristics. While the graduation rates calculated in 

IPEDS exclude part-time and transfer students, IPEDS enrollment data include these 

students. The other study used BPS data to calculate default rates. In general, a lack of 

statistical significance can mean that there is no actual difference or that the sample sizes 

are too small to detect any differences. 

While for-profit graduates as a group 

12It was not possible to compare the overall performance of graduates on the Funeral 

Director exam because data on the combined pass rate for the two sections of the exam 

(Arts and Sciences) were not available. 

For-Profit School 

Graduates Generally 

Had Lower Pass Rates 

than Graduates from 

Other Schools on 

Licensing Exams We 

Reviewed 

Exam Results
 

Page 8 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

generally had lower pass rates, some individual for-profit schools had 

relatively high pass rates. For example, 9 of the 40 for-profit schools in 

our analysis of the radiographer exam had pass rates of 100 percent in 

2010.13

Several experts and higher education association officials said that 

licensing exam pass rates are one reasonable measure of school quality. 

However, exam pass rates also have some limitations when used for this 

purpose. For example, relatively few postsecondary graduates overall 

take licensing exams, as many occupations do not require a license. 

Further, pass rates on licensing exams only measure the performance of 

students who both complete a program and take the exam. Data were not 

available to compare the total number of students who begin a program 

with those who take the exam. Consequently, a high pass rate may not 

provide complete information about the quality of a program if a large 

number of enrolled students do not finish a program or do not take a 

licensing exam.14

Differences in student populations may also affect pass rates. While 

focusing on graduates can mitigate the effect of differences in student 

characteristics, it may not completely eliminate the impact of these 

characteristics on test results. Nevertheless, the federal government has 

a strong interest in ensuring that schools that receive federal student aid 

funds are appropriately preparing graduates for any required licensing 

exams.

We provided a draft copy of this report to Education for review and 

comment. Education did not have comments on the report. In addition, we 

shared relevant sections of the draft report with (1) the authors of studies 

included in our literature review and (2) the states and entities that 

 

13In most cases, the pass rate data provided by testing entities did not identify individual 

schools. As a result, it was not possible to conduct further analyses on school 

characteristics that might be associated with higher pass rates.

14For example, a school may enroll 100 students in an educational program. If 75 students 

do not complete the program or choose not to take a required licensing exam, only 25 of 

the initial 100 students will take the exam. If all 25 pass the exam, the program will have a 

100-percent pass rate. This school will have the same pass rate as a school that enrolled 

100 students, who all completed the program, took the exam, and passed. 

Limitations 

Agency Comments
 

Page 9 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

provided licensing exam data to us. We incorporated their technical 

comments as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to relevant congressional 

committees, the Secretary of Education, and other interested parties. In 

addition, this report will be available at no charge on GAO’s website at 

http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-7215 or scottg@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices 

of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 

page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report 

are listed in appendix V.

George A. Scott

Director, Education, Workforce,

 and Income Security Issues
 

Page 10 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

Congressional Requesters

The Honorable Richard J. Durbin

Majority Whip

United States Senate

The Honorable Tom Harkin

Chairman

The Honorable Michael B. Enzi

Ranking Member

Committee on Health, Education,

Labor, and Pensions

United States Senate 

The Honorable Lamar Alexander

United States Senate

The Honorable John Kline

Chairman

The Honorable George Miller

Ranking Member

Committee on Education and the Workforce

House of Representatives

The Honorable Virginia Foxx

Chairwoman

The Honorable Rubén Hinojosa

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Higher Education 

 and Workforce Training

Committee on Education and the Workforce

House of Representatives

The Honorable Robert Andrews

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, 

 and Pensions

Committee on Education and the Workforce

House of Representatives
 

Page 11 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

The Honorable Timothy Bishop

House of Representatives

The Honorable Alcee L. Hastings

House of Representatives
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 12 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

To help us identify data sources on student outcomes and recent 

research comparing student outcomes across sectors (for-profit, 

nonprofit, and public), we interviewed officials from the Department of 

Education (Education) and Education’s Office of Inspector General (OIG). 

We also spoke with 10 higher education experts and researchers, as well 

as representatives from 6 higher education associations, 6 postsecondary 

school accreditors, and 8 state agencies that oversee postsecondary 

institutions.1

We conducted this performance audit from November 2010 through 

December 2011 in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the 

audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 

basis for our findings based on our audit objectives. We believe that the 

evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings based on 

our audit objectives.

We also reviewed relevant federal laws and regulations. To 

address our objectives, we (1) conducted a structured literature review of 

recent studies comparing selected postsecondary student outcomes at 

for-profit and nonprofit and/or public schools and (2) collected and 

analyzed pass rate data for selected licensing exams for first-time test 

takers from for-profit, nonprofit, and public schools, focusing on schools 

that participate in federal student aid programs.

To identify recent research on comparative postsecondary student 

outcomes at for-profit, nonprofit, and public schools, we conducted a 

structured literature review. We searched numerous bibliographic 

databases—including Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), 

ProQuest, Education Journals, PsycINFO, National Technical Information 

Service (NTIS), EconLit, and WorldCat—for articles or studies published 

from January 2000 through July 2011 that used data from 2000 or later.2

 

1

We spoke with the following higher education associations: American Association of 

Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, American Association of Community 

Colleges, Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities, National Association of 

College Admissions Counselors, National Association of Independent Colleges and 

Universities, and National Student Clearinghouse. 

2

Our search also included the following databases: Congressional Research Service; 

Wilson Social Sciences Abstracts; Social SciSearch; Sociological Abstracts; Social 

Services Abstracts; Academic OneFile; PolicyFile; Statistical Insight; Electronic 

Collections Online; PapersFirst; ArticleFirst; Dissertation Abstracts Online; PAIS 

International; PASCAL; and British Education Index. 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Literature Review
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 13 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

We employed a variety of search strategies to identify research related to 

student outcomes such as graduation rates, employment outcomes, 

earnings, student loan indebtedness, and default rates. In addition to 

searching the bibliographic databases, we identified studies through 

citations in previously identified work and through a review of several 

higher education news publications. We also asked higher education 

associations, researchers, and Education officials to identify any relevant 

studies and included such studies in our review. We defined “studies” 

broadly to include published peer-reviewed journal articles; ongoing 

studies submitted to journals for formal publication by academic 

researchers; unpublished studies by higher education associations, 

academic researchers, and other experts; and studies issued or 

commissioned by different higher education associations, researchers, 

the Congressional Research Service, or Education.

In order to focus on studies that compared postsecondary student 

outcomes at for-profit and nonprofit and/or public schools, we examined 

all initial search results and restricted our formal review to studies 

meeting the following criteria:

• focused on the U.S. student population;

• used at least some data collected in 2000 or later;

• addressed at least one of the following student outcomes: graduation 

rates, earnings, employment outcomes, student loan debt, and default 

rates;

• compared outcomes of for-profit schools with outcomes of nonprofit 

and/or public schools; and

• contained original analysis controlling for at least one student 

characteristic (e.g., race, gender, and age).

We identified 32 studies that met these screening criteria. For each of 

these studies, we conducted a rigorous review of the research 

methodology, including the research design; objectives; data source; 

analyses conducted; and any applicable data-related or methodological 

limitations. As a result of this review, we excluded 21 studies due to 

methodological limitations and retained 11 for our analyses (see app. II 

for a list of the 11 studies). Seven of the 11 remaining studies included 

information on graduation rates, 1 study focused on employment 

outcomes, 4 studies included information on total student loan 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 14 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

indebtedness, and 2 studies included information on student loan default 

rates at schools. All of these studies included comparative analyses of 

student outcomes at for-profit and nonprofit and/or public schools, while 

controlling for at least one student characteristic, and all were determined 

to be methodologically sound.3

To identify potential occupations for our analyses, we reviewed 

information from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ 2010-2011 Occupational 

Outlook Handbook and Education data on the largest fields of study by 

enrollment. We also spoke with and reviewed information from 

representatives at national credentialing organizations, state licensing 

bodies, testing companies, and other entities involved in occupational 

licensing, to learn more about which occupations require practitioners to 

pass an exam, which states require practitioners to pass specific exams, 

and the availability of exam data. To identify educational programs of 

study associated with our potential list of occupations, we reviewed 

Education’s Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) codes. We 

initially considered more than 20 occupational fields.4

We restricted our analysis of licensing exam data to occupations that met 

the following criteria.5

• Practitioners are generally required to pass a licensing exam in order 

to work.6

 

3

The studies in our literature review did not separately analyze outcomes for students at 

minority-serving institutions. 

4

Occupations that we considered included: funeral directors/embalmers, cosmetology, 

culinary arts/cooking, teaching, law/attorneys, legal assisting/paralegal, criminal 

justice/law enforcement/corrections, dental assisting, dental hygienists, medical assisting, 

EMT/paramedics, radiography, surgical technology, ultrasound/sonography, nursing, 

nurse assistants/home health aides, dietetics/nutrition, massage therapy, accounting, real 

estate, plumbing, and electricians. 

5

We use the term “licensing exam” to refer to exams that are required to work in a specific 

occupation, even though some of these exams may technically be certification exams. 

6

Surgical technologists who work in a health care facility, such as a hospital or ambulatory 

surgical center, must generally pass an exam to work in the two states included in our 

analysis. While surgical technologists who work in physicians’ offices are not necessarily 

required to pass the exam, knowledgeable individuals told us that the significant majority 

of surgical technologists work in health care facilities. Surgical technologists who work for 

the federal government or were trained by the U.S. military or the U.S. Public Health 

Service are also exempt from the testing requirement in these states.

Licensing Exam Pass 

Rate Analysis
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 15 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

• Obtaining a license does not require significant work experience 

before taking the licensing exam.7

• Passing a licensing exam is generally not a requirement to graduate 

from a program of study.8

To ensure that we selected programs with sufficient numbers of 

graduates across sectors, we used CIP data to determine the number of 

students completing each program in each sector in school year 2009.9

As we identified potential occupations and programs and spoke with 

representatives from state and other licensing entities, we further refined 

our list by eliminating occupations where available data would not allow 

us to both (1) reliably identify the type of school at which test takers 

completed an educational program and (2) reliably distinguish first time 

test takers from repeat test takers.10

Licensing exams in the following 10 occupations met our criteria and the 

associated exam entities agreed to provide us with data: Registered 

Nurse (RN), Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), Radiographer, Emergency 

Medical Technician (EMT), Paramedic, Surgical Technologist, Massage 

Therapist, Lawyer, Cosmetologist, and Funeral Director. We generally 

collected licensing exam pass rate data for first-time test takers for 

calendar years 2008, 2009, and 2010 to allow us to identify pass rate 

patterns and account for any data anomalies that might occur in a single 

year. To prevent the identification of individual schools or students, we did 

not report specific pass rates if there were less than five programs in a 

 

7

Some occupations we initially considered, such as plumber and electrician, typically 

require long apprenticeships prior to taking a licensing exam. We excluded such 

occupations since passage of a licensing exam might reflect skills acquired during an 

apprenticeship rather than from an educational program.

8

An Education official told us that some teaching programs have historically required 

students to pass a licensing exam to graduate, so pass rates would always be 100 

percent and therefore not a reasonable measure of program quality. 

9

While CIP completions data do not directly correspond to the exact number of licensing 

exam test takers in any field, we used these data as a proxy for actual test taker data to 

ascertain which programs of study and corresponding occupations were worth pursuing. 

10We focused on first-time test takers because we believe their results are more closely 

associated with the quality of the program they completed, since they are less likely to 

have had intervening experiences since completing their schooling. 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 16 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

sector over the 2008-2010 time period, unless the data were publicly 

available.

When possible, we selected licensing exams offered by national 

organizations to maximize the number of states in our analysis.11 To 

ensure that national data included in our analyses were consistent and 

equivalent, we restricted our analysis to national licensing exams where a 

single exam with a nationally set pass score was used. We included in 

our analyses only states that required passing the licensing exam to 

practice in the occupation.12

RN and LPN. We analyzed licensing exam data from the National 

Council of State Boards of Nursing for first-time exam takers from LPN 

programs, associate’s degree RN programs, and bachelor’s degree RN 

programs.

We obtained pass rate data for a national 

exam for seven occupations—RN, LPN, radiographer, EMT, paramedic, 

surgical technologist, and funeral director.

13 For each of these degrees, we collected data on less than 2-

year programs, 2-year programs, and 4-year programs. All states require 

RNs and LPNs to pass these exams in order to practice. 14

Radiographer. We collected licensing exam data from the American 

Registry of Radiologic Technologists for its radiography technologist 

exam. We obtained data for 34 states that require radiographers to pass 

this exam in order to practice in the state.

EMT and Paramedic. We collected licensing exam data from the 

National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians for its basic EMT 

and paramedic exams. We obtained data for 32 states that required 

 

11The District of Columbia is counted as a state in reporting on the number of states from 

which licensing data were collected. 

12To determine which states require practitioners to pass specific exams, we spoke with 

and reviewed information from representatives at national credentialing organizations, 

state licensing bodies, testing companies, and other entities involved in occupational 

licensing.

13Some states use the term Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) instead of LPN. LVNs must 

pass the same exam as LPNs.

14Nursing data also include programs in American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana 

Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.

Data Sources for Pass 

Rates on Licensing Exams 

Included in Our Analyses
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 17 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

EMTs to pass this basic EMT exam and for 38 states that require 

paramedics to pass this paramedic exam in order to practice in the state.

Surgical Technologist. We collected licensing exam data from the 

National Board of Surgical Technology and Surgical Assisting for its 

surgical technologist exam.15

Funeral Director. We collected licensing exam data from the 

International Conference of Funeral Service Examining Boards, Inc. for its 

National Board Examination. These data were for graduates of the 56 

American Board of Funeral Service Education (ABFSE) accredited 

schools, which are located in 32 states. While not all states require 

passing this exam to practice as a funeral director, all students in ABFSEaccredited programs are required to take the exam in order to graduate.

While no state requires surgical 

technologists to be licensed, two states do require most surgical 

technologists to pass this exam in order to practice in the state. We 

obtained data for these two states.

16

 

15We only report surgical technologist pass rates for 2010 because one of the two states 

included in our review did not require surgical technologists to pass this exam until 2010.

Therefore, we determined that this exam allowed for a reasonable 

comparison of program quality across sectors. The exam consists of two 

sections—Arts and Sciences—which may be taken together or at different 

times. We report pass rates for each section separately because the 

International Conference of Funeral Service Examining Boards does not 

calculate a combined pass rate. Seven of the schools that ABFSE 

accredits offer bachelor’s degree programs in addition to or instead of 

associate’s degree programs; however, the International Conference of 

Funeral Service Examining Boards cannot distinguish between test takers 

from associate’s degree and bachelor degree programs. In order to 

ensure a fair comparison across sectors, we collected and analyzed the 

data both including and excluding schools that offer a bachelor’s degree 

program. The findings were generally similar for both analyses with 

respect to the relationship between test takers from for-profit schools and 

16According to the International Conference of Funeral Service Examining Boards, 

generally individuals are required to take, but not pass, the exam to graduate. One of the 

ABFSE-accredited program requires passing the exam to graduate; however, we obtained 

exam data for all students who took the exam, not just graduates, so this requirement did 

not impact our analysis. 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 18 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

those from nonprofit and public schools.17

For the three remaining occupations, we collected data from selected 

states for state and/or multiple national exams accepted for licensing 

purposes.

 There were only four for-profit 

schools included in our analysis; however, because school pass rate data 

are available publicly, we made an exception to our rule of not reporting 

on sectors with less than five programs, which is meant to protect the 

identity of individual schools. 

18 For each occupation, we used Education’s CIP data to 

identify the four states in which the numbers of graduates and the 

distribution of graduates across sectors provided the best chance to 

detect any statistically significant differences that might exist between 

sectors. However, in some cases, we were unable to obtain data from 

one of the top four states, so we collected data from the state that was 

the next most likely to allow us detect differences across sectors.19

Massage Therapist. We collected massage therapy licensing exam pass 

rate data for schools in Florida, New York, North Carolina, and Ohio.

We 

generally included test takers from schools that were considered “in-state” 

by the states in our analysis. Results for individual states are not 

generalizable to other states and it is possible that sector comparisons in 

other states would show different results or would differ as to whether the 

results were statistically significant.

20

 

17Results when including bachelor’s degree programs in our analysis were slightly 

different in one year—it eliminated the statistically significant difference between test 

takers from for-profit schools and those from public schools on the sciences section of the 

exam in 2009. See appendix III for data including and excluding schools offering 

bachelor’s degrees.

New York and Ohio use their own state exams. During the time period for 

which we collected data, Florida and North Carolina both accepted 

18For state licensing exams, states could have different requirements, but each individual 

state had to use one or comparable licensing exams for everyone who is licensed to 

practice in a specific occupation within the state. 

19For cosmetology, for example, Georgia was among the four states which best met our 

criteria; however, we were unable to collect data from this state, so we used North 

Carolina as our alternative. 

20We report massage therapy exam pass rates for 2008-2010 for Florida, North Carolina, 

and New York. Ohio offers its exam in June and December; we were only able to obtain 

data for the December exam in 2008, so the pass rate reported for Ohio is for the second 

half of 2008 and all of 2009 and 2010. 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 19 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

passage of exams from either of two different testing entities and we 

report pass rates separately for the separate exams.21

Bar Exam for Lawyers. We collected publicly available bar exam pass 

rate data from California, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina, but 

eliminated South Carolina because first-time and repeat test takers could 

not be separately identified.

We do not report 

specific pass rates for nonprofit massage therapist programs because 

there were fewer than five such programs in New York and Ohio, and 

none in Florida or North Carolina over the 2008-2010 time period.

22

 

21Although we tried to avoid states in which more than one exam was used, we included 

data from both Florida and North Carolina because we were able to obtain complete data 

on each exam accepted in these states. Both states accept exams from two testing 

entities: (1) the Federation of State Massage Therapy Boards, which offers the Massage 

and Bodywork Licensing Examination, and (2) the National Certification Board for 

Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork, which offers the National Certification Examination 

for Therapeutic Massage and the National Certification Examination for Therapeutic 

Massage and Bodywork exams. We determined that combining the results of both exams 

offered by the National Certification Board was methodologically sound after interviewing 

officials at the National Certification Board, who told us that the content of the two exams 

was largely identical. Results for these two exams are reported individually in appendix III. 

The National Certification Board provided results from the English language version of its 

exams. A board official told us that the board offers a Spanish language version of its 

exams, but test taker volume is very low.

 There were fewer than five schools in 

several sectors in these states; however, because school pass rate data 

are publicly available, we made an exception to our rule of not reporting 

on sectors with less than five programs, which is meant to protect the 

identity of individual schools.

22These data were collected from the websites of the State Bar of California, the Florida 

Board of Bar Examiners, the Supreme Court of Georgia, Office of Bar Admissions, and the 

South Carolina Supreme Court, Office of Bar Admissions. In the states for which we 

analyzed data, the bar exam is offered twice each year, in February and July. We 

collected data from both exams and combined the February and July results in our 

analysis. In most states, only graduates of schools accredited by the American Bar 

Association (ABA) are eligible to take the bar exam, but in California, students from ABAaccredited, California-accredited, and California-unaccredited law schools are eligible to 

take the bar exam and practice in the state. Two of the three California for-profit law 

schools in our data set were unaccredited; the third was ABA-accredited. Seven of the 22 

nonprofit schools were accredited by California, but not the ABA; the rest were ABAaccredited. All of the public schools were ABA-accredited.
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 20 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

Cosmetologist. We collected cosmetology licensing exam pass rate data 

from California, Florida, North Carolina, and Texas.23 To obtain a license 

in these states, individuals must pass both a written and a practical 

portion of the exam. Only test takers who passed both the written and 

practical portions of the exam on their first attempt are included in the 

percent of first-time test takers who passed the exam. In California, North 

Carolina, and Texas, candidates can apply for a general cosmetology 

license, which allows them to perform a wide range of cosmetologyrelated activities, or a more specific license, such as a manicure or 

esthetician license, which have their own licensing exams.24 In Florida, 

only one cosmetology licensing exam was offered.25 In the states that 

offer multiple exams, we collected data on each exam, but only reported 

pass rates on the largest exam by test taker volume.26

We assessed the reliability of licensing exam data for each exam in our 

analysis by interviewing representatives at each entity from which we 

collected data and reviewing documentation related to the data systems 

and the collection, storage, and processing of data, when available. We 

determined that all data included in our report are sufficiently reliable for 

the purpose of comparing pass rates across sectors.

We did not report 

specific pass rates for nonprofit cosmetology programs because 

California and North Carolina did not have any nonprofit cosmetologist 

programs and Florida and Texas each had less than five nonprofit 

cosmetologist programs over the 2008-2010 time period.

 

23We collected data from the California State Board of Barbering and Cosmetology, the 

Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Cosmetology, the 

North Carolina Board of Cosmetic Art Examiners, and the Texas Department of Licensing 

and Regulation.

24Estheticians specialize in skin care therapy and perform treatments such as facials and 

waxing. 

25Because Florida could not reliably identify the school from which test takers graduated 

for its 2008 exam data, we collected only 2009 and 2010 data from Florida.

26When all cosmetologist-related exams were analyzed together, the pass rate of 

graduates of for-profit schools was generally lower than that of graduates of public 

schools. However, there were few statistically significant differences in pass rates when 

the less common tests were examined individually, possibly due to small numbers of test 

takers (see app. III for data on each individual exam).
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 21 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

For each occupation, licensing exam data were collected at either the 

program level or individual test taker level. Entities providing program 

level data identified first-time and repeat test takers for us.27

We determined the sector of each school using information from 

Education’s Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) 

database.

In some 

cases, the entity providing the data did not want to provide data in a way 

that would allow us to identify a specific school’s pass rate. In such cases, 

we sent the entity the list of schools with their sector identified, and the 

entity replaced the school name with a generic, sector-specific identifier 

such as “public school 1,” “public school 2,” etc. As a result, further 

analysis with respect to individual school characteristics was not possible. 

For test taker level data, we identified the first time an individual took an 

exam using the exam dates provided, and compiled school level records 

based on the school name or unique identifier associated with each 

school.

28

After we grouped the schools by sector for each licensing exam, we used 

SAS software to calculate licensing exam pass rates and mean school 

This allowed us to focus on schools that participate in federal 

student aid programs. However, it is possible that we were unable to 

match some schools to a sector because the name provided did not 

match closely enough to the school name listed in IPEDS. Additionally, 

IPEDS contains a small number of schools that do not participate in 

federal student aid programs. It is possible that a small number of 

nonparticipating schools are captured in our analysis if they offer 

programs related to the occupations for which we collected licensing data.

 

27In some cases, only data on first-time test takers was provided. 

28Generally, the entity from which we collected data provided a list of schools with 

programs from which graduates were eligible to take the exam. However, in some cases 

we obtained a list of applicable schools from publicly available sources. For the bar exam, 

we obtained a list of applicable schools from each state’s bar website. For the 

radiography, Texas cosmetology, and Funeral Director exams, we obtained a list of 

applicable schools from the American Registry of Radiologic Technologists, the Texas 

Department of Licensing and Regulation, and the American Board of Funeral Service 

Education’s websites, respectively. 

Data Analysis
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 22 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

pass rates for first-time test takers for each exam for each sector.29 We 

conducted appropriate tests to assess the statistical significance of

differences in student pass rates and mean school pass rates across 

sectors (see app. III for overall sector and mean school pass rate data 

and school pass rate distribution data).30 We presented overall sector 

pass rates rather than mean school pass rates in our briefing to avoid 

having schools with a small number of test takers disproportionately 

influence sector comparisons. In addition, using the student (rather than 

the school) as the unit of analysis resulted in larger comparison groups, 

which increased the likelihood of detecting any statistically significant 

differences that might exist between sectors. Generally, there were not 

substantial differences between the overall sector pass rates and the 

mean school pass rates.31 In some cases, sector differences in student 

pass rates were statistically significant, but differences in the mean school 

pass rates were not. This may be due to the fact that analyses of mean 

school pass rates are based on fewer observations than analyses of 

overall sector pass rates.

There are some limitations related to using licensing exam pass rates as 

an indicator of school quality. First, although experts and higher education 

association officials told us that licensing exam pass rates are one 

reasonable measure of school quality, relatively few postsecondary 

school graduates take licensing exams because many occupations do not 

 

29To calculate mean school pass rates, we counted the number of school programs in our 

data. There are challenges when matching schools with Education’s IPEDS data base and 

counting the number of school programs. Some schools have multiple branches and 

campuses and can be included in Education’s data as either a single school or multiple 

schools. As a result, matching school programs and counting the number of programs 

involved some judgment.

30Although we have data for the population of students and schools taking specific tests in 

each year, we expect some random fluctuation in the population over time. Accordingly, 

we did not treat pass rate information as fixed population data, but instead we used 

statistical tests to determine whether the differences we observed exceeded what we 

would expect to see with random fluctuation. We used t-tests at the 95 percent confidence 

level. A 95 percent confidence level for t-tests implies that we would have less than a 5 

percent chance of observing the differences that occurred by chance.

31Almost 80 percent of the time, differences between overall sector pass rates and mean 

school pass rates were within 5 percentage points of each other. In the remaining cases, 

differences of more than 5 percentage points occurred most frequently for law programs in 

California, massage therapy programs in Florida and North Carolina, and cosmetology 

programs in North Carolina and Texas. 

Limitations of the Analysis
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 23 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

require a license or certification. Therefore, this analysis is limited to 

specific programs for which graduates require licensure and does not 

provide information on the quality of other types of postsecondary 

programs. In addition, reliable data were not available to estimate the 

number of students who begin programs likely to lead to specific 

occupations requiring a license; as a result, we could not compare the 

number of students who begin a program to those who complete the 

program or to those who take the relevant licensing exam. Therefore, a 

school could have a high licensing exam pass rate, but could also have a 

high drop-out rate if the students least likely to pass the exam did not 

complete the program. Additionally, a school could have a high exam 

pass rate if those graduates least likely to pass the exam decided not to 

take it.

Although student characteristics, such as race and income, have 

generally been found to be correlated with student outcomes, data were 

generally not available on the characteristics of licensing exam test 

takers. As a result, controlling for these factors in our analysis was not 

possible. Exam pass rates may be affected by the extent to which schools 

in one sector serve a higher proportion of nontraditional or disadvantaged 

students. Similarly, schools that attract better prepared students may 

have higher licensing exam pass rates, which may not be a direct function 

of the quality of the education provided. Although focusing on outcomes 

for graduates can mitigate the impact of student characteristics, it may not 

completely eliminate the effect of these characteristics on test results.

Lastly, the number of schools and students for some of the exams in our 

analysis was quite small. For example, there was only one for-profit law 

school in Florida and only one for-profit, two nonprofit, and two public law 

schools in Georgia. Similarly, there were only 5 for-profit paramedic 

programs compared to 368 public paramedic programs (see app. III for 

data on the number of programs and test takers for each exam).
Appendix II: List of Studies and Ongoing 

Research Included in Our Literature Review

Page 24 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

We identified 11 studies that included original research on postsecondary 

student outcomes, controlled for at least one student characteristic, 

compared student outcomes at for-profit schools and schools from at 

least one other sector (nonprofit or public), and met our standards for 

methodological soundness. Table 1 identifies these studies, the outcomes 

of interest from each study, the data source, and the time period covered 

by the study data.

Table 1: Studies Included in GAO’s Report, By Student Outcomes

Student outcome of 

interest Study information

Data source and time 

period covered

Graduation rates, 

employment outcomes, 

student indebtedness, And 

school default rates

Deming, D., Claudia Goldin, and Lawrence F. Katz, The For-Profit 

Postsecondary School Sector: Nimble Critters or Agile Predators? Draft 

Paper Harvard University and the National Bureau of Economic 

Research. (Mass., July 2011).

BPS, 2004-2009

IPEDS, 2005-2008

NSLDS, 2005-2008

Graduation rates Skomsvold, P., Alexandria Walton Radford, and Lutz Berkner of MPR 

Associates, Inc., Web Tables: Six-Year Attainment, Persistence, Transfer, 

Retention, and Withdrawal Rates of Students Who Began Postsecondary 

Education in 2003-04. ED-02-CO-0011, U.S. Department of Education, 

National Center for Education Statistics (Washington, D.C.: July 2011). 

BPS, 2004-2009 

Graduation rates Knapp, L.G., J.E. Kelly-Reid, and S.A. Ginder. Enrollment in 

Postsecondary Institutions, Fall 2009; Graduation Rates, 2003 & 2006 

Cohorts; and Financial Statistics, Fiscal Year 2009. (NCES 2011-230), 

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics 

(Washington, D.C.: February 2011). 

IPEDS, spring 2010

Graduation rates Knapp, L.G., J.E. Kelly-Reid, and S.A. Ginder, Enrollment in 

Postsecondary Institutions, Fall 2008; Graduation Rates, 2002 & 2005 

Cohorts; and Financial Statistics, Fiscal Year 2008. (NCES 2010-152), 

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics 

(Washington, D.C.: April 2010). 

IPEDS, spring 2009 

Graduation rates Knapp, L.G., J.E. Kelly-Reid, and S.A. Ginder, Enrollment in 

Postsecondary Institutions, Fall 2007; Graduation Rates, 2001 & 2004 

Cohorts; and Financial Statistics, Fiscal Year 2007. (NCES 2009-155), 

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics 

(Washington, D.C.: March 2009). 

IPEDS, spring 2008

Graduation rates Knapp, L.G., J.E. Kelly-Reid, S.A.Ginder, and E. Miller, Enrollment in 

Postsecondary Institutions, Fall 2006; Graduation Rates, 2000 & 2003 

Cohorts; and Financial Statistics, Fiscal Year 2006. (NCES 2008-173), 

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics 

(Washington D.C.: June 2008). 

IPEDS, spring 2007

Graduation rates Knapp, L.G., J.E. Kelly-Reid, R.W. Whitmore, and E. Miller, Enrollment in 

Postsecondary Institutions, Fall 2005; Graduation Rates, 1999 and 2002 

Cohorts; and Financial Statistics, Fiscal Year 2005. (NCES 2007-154), 

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics 

(Washington D.C.: April 2007). 

IPEDS, spring 2006

Appendix II: List of Studies and Ongoing 

Research Included in Our Literature Review
Appendix II: List of Studies and Ongoing 

Research Included in Our Literature Review

Page 25 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

Student outcome of 

interest Study information

Data source and time 

period covered

Student indebtedness Hinze-Pifer, R. and R. Fry, “The Rise of College Student Borrowing, A 

Social and Demographic Trends Report,” Pew Research Center 

(November 2010).

NPSAS, 2007-2008 

Student indebtedness Baum, S. and Patricia Steele, “Who Borrows the Most? Bachelor’s 

Degree Recipients with High Levels of Student Debt,” College Board 

Advocacy & Policy Center, Trends in Higher Education Series (2010). 

NPSAS, 2007-2008

Student indebtedness “Trends in Student Aid 2010,” College Board Advocacy & Policy Center 

Trends in Higher Education Series (2010).

NPSAS, 2007-2008

Default rate Guryan, J., M. Thompson, and Charles River Associates, Report on 

Gainful Employment, Prepared for Harris N. Miller, Career College 

Association (Washington, D.C.: April 2010).

BPS, 1996-2001 

Source: GAO.

Note: IPEDS refers to Education’s Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System. BPS refers to 

Education’s Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study. NPSAS refers to Education’s 

National Postsecondary Student Aid Survey. NSLDS refers to Education’s National Student Loan 

Data System.
Appendix III: Detailed Analysis of Licensing 

Exam Pass Rates

Page 26 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

The following tables contain more detailed data from our analyses of 

licensing exam pass rates. For each exam, data are presented in two 

tables and one figure. The first table contains the number of programs 

and number of test takers by sector. The second table contains the 

overall student pass rate and the mean program pass rate by sector. To 

protect the confidentiality of individual schools and students, we did not 

report pass rates in cases in which there were less than five programs 

(unless the data were already publicly available). The figure presents the 

distribution of program pass rates by sector over the 2008-2010 time 

period.

Table 2: RN (Bachelor’s Degrees): Number of Programs and First Time Test Takers, by Sector

2008 2009 2010 2008-2010

Sector 

Program 

length Programs

Test 

takers Programs

Test 

takers Programs

Test 

takers Programs

Test 

takers

For-profit Less than 2 

years 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2 years 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

4 years 11 518 14 825 20 1,083 21 2,426

Total 11 518 14 825 20 1,083 21 2,426

Nonprofit Less than 2 

years 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2 years 1 111 1 112 2 131 2 354

4 years 300 18,690 316 19,313 322 20,354 328 58,357

Total 301 18,801 317 19,425 324 20,485 330 58,711

Public Less than 2 

years 1 232 1 195 1 200 1 627

2 years 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

4 years 297 27,994 302 29,163 310 30,780 315 87,937

Total 298 28,226 303 29,358 311 30,980 316 88,564

Source: GAO analysis of National Council of State Boards of Nursing data.

Appendix III: Detailed Analysis of Licensing 

Exam Pass Rates
Appendix III: Detailed Analysis of Licensing 

Exam Pass Rates

Page 27 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

Table 3: RN (Bachelor’s Degree): Student Pass Rate and Mean Program Pass Rate, by Sector

2008 2009 2010 2008-2010

Sector 

Program 

length

Student 

pass rate

Mean 

program 

pass rate

Student 

pass rate

Mean 

program 

pass rate

Student 

pass rate

Mean 

program 

pass rate

Student 

pass rate

Mean 

program 

pass rate

For-profit Less than 

2 years n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

2 years n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

4 years 83.6 83.1 c 84.8b, 77.9 c 84.8 86 c 84.5 81.3 b, c

Total 83.6% 83.1% c 84.8% 77.9% b, c 84.8% 86% c 84.5% 81.3% b, c

Nonprofit Less than 

2 years n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

2 years n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r

4 years 85 83.7 c c 87.8 86.1 a, c c 87.2 85.6 c c 86.7 84.4 a, c

Total

c

85% 83.7% c c 87.9% 86.1% a, c c 87.2% 85.7% c c 86.7% 84.5% a, c

Public

c

Less than 

2 years n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r

2 years n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

4 years 88.9 87.9 a, b b 90.5 90.5 a, b b 89.7 88.4 a, b b 89.7 88.9 a, b

Total

b

88.9% 87.9% a, b b 90.5% 90.5% a, b b 89.7% 88.4% a, b b 89.7% 88.9% a, b

Source: GAO analysis of National Council of State Boards of Nursing data.

b

Notes: To calculate the student pass rate, the total number of first-time test takers passing the exam 

was divided by the total number of first-time test takers for each sector for each year and overall. The 

mean program pass rate represents the average pass rate of all programs in each sector and was 

calculated by summing the individual program pass rates and dividing by the total number of 

programs for each sector, for each year and overall.

N/R indicates that we are not reporting pass rates because there were less than five programs.

N/A indicates not applicable because there were no programs or test takers.

a

Indicates pass rate is statistically different from for-profit sector pass rates.

b

Indicates pass rate is statistically different from nonprofit sector pass rate.

c

Indicates pass rate is statistically different from public sector pass rate.
Appendix III: Detailed Analysis of Licensing 

Exam Pass Rates

Page 28 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

Table 4: RN (Associate’s Degree): Number of Programs and First Time Test Takers, by Sector

2008 2009 2010 2008-2010

Sector 

Program 

length Programs

Test 

takers Programs

Test 

takers Programs

Test 

takers Programs

Test 

takers

For-profit Less than 2 

years 2 117 3 223 5 212 5 552

2 years 28 1,709 35 2,283 46 3,085 47 7,077

4 years 15 1,034 21 1,304 26 1,534 27 3,872

Total 45 2,860 59 3,810 77 4,831 79 11,501

Nonprofit Less than 2 

years 1 21 1 12 2 43 2 76

2 years 28 2,019 28 2,215 28 1,998 29 6,232

4 years 73 6,165 78 6,324 78 6,298 81 18,787

Total 102 8,205 107 8,551 108 8,339 112 25,095

Public Less than 2 

years 1 11 2 32 2 55 2 98

2 years 723 52,076 741 53,741 758 55,956 768 161,773

4 years 119 9,592 115 9,578 117 9,569 124 28,739

Total 843 61,679 858 63,351 877 65,580 894 190,610

Source: GAO analysis of National Council of State Boards of Nursing data.

Table 5: RN (Associate’s Degree): Student Pass Rate and Mean Program Pass Rate, by Sector

2008 2009 2010 2008-2010

Sector 

Program 

length

Student 

pass rate

Mean 

program 

pass rate

Student 

pass rate

Mean 

program 

pass rate

Student 

pass 

rate

Mean 

program 

pass rate

Student 

pass 

rate

Mean 

program 

pass rate

For-profit Less than 2 

years n/r n/r n/r n/r 78.3 70.9 84.2 71.3

2 years 71.4b, 70.4 c b, c 79.7 77.2 b, c b, c 78.7 77.8 b, c b, c 77.3 76.2 b, c b, c

4 years 78.9b, 76.5 c b, c 84 75.5 c b, c 83.2 82.8 c 82.3b, 78.7 c

Total

c

74.6%b, 73% c b, c 81.8%b, 77.2% c b, c 80.1%b, 79% c b, c 79.3% 76.7% b, c b,

Nonprofit

c

Less than 2 

years n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r

2 years 83.9a, 82 c a 86.6 87.4 a, c a 86.1 87.8 a a 85.6 86.4 a, c a

4 years 85.1 85.6 a a 86 86.1a 84.4 83.2 c 85.2 84 a, c

Total 84.8% 84.7% a, c a 86.2%a, 86.5% c a 84.8% 84.3% a, c a, c 85.3% 84.6% a, c

Public

a, c

Less than 2 

years n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r

2 years 87.4 87.1 a, b a 88.4 88.4 a, b a 87.2 87.3 a a 87.7 87.1 a, b a
Appendix III: Detailed Analysis of Licensing 

Exam Pass Rates

Page 29 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

2008 2009 2010 2008-2010

Sector 

Program 

length

Student 

pass rate

Mean 

program 

pass rate

Student 

pass rate

Mean 

program 

pass rate

Student 

pass 

rate

Mean 

program 

pass rate

Student 

pass 

rate

Mean 

program 

pass rate

4 years 85.4 85.2 a a 87.2 87.8 a a 87 85.7 a, b 86.5 85.9 a, b

Total

a

87.1%a, b 86.8%a 88.3% 88.3% a, b a 87.2% 87% a, b a, b 87.5% 87% a, b

Source: GAO analysis of National Council of State Boards of Nursing data.

a, b

Notes: To calculate the student pass rate, the total number of first-time test takers passing the exam 

was divided by the total number of first-time test takers for each sector for each year and overall. The 

mean program pass rate represents the average pass rate of all programs in each sector and was 

calculated by summing the individual program pass rates and dividing by the total number of 

programs for each sector, for each year and overall.

N/R indicates that we are not reporting pass rates because there were less than five programs.

a

Indicates pass rate is statistically different from for-profit sector pass rates.

b

Indicates pass rate is statistically different from nonprofit sector pass rate.

c

Table 6: LPN: Number of Programs and First Time Test Takers, by Sector

Indicates pass rate is statistically different from public sector pass rate.

2008 2009 2010 2008-2010

Sector 

Program 

length Programs

Test 

takers Programs

Test 

takers Programs

Test 

takers Programs

Test 

takers

For-profit Less than 

2 years 54 3,104 60 3,495 65 4,342 69 10,941

2 years 79 6,770 89 7,386 100 8,010 106 22,166

4 years 29 1,721 28 1,647 32 2,254 34 5,622

Total 162 11,595 177 12,528 197 14,606 209 38,729

Nonprofit Less than 

2 years 19 1,153 19 1,034 20 958 20 3,145

2 years 12 537 12 583 11 576 12 1,696

4 years 17 596 20 690 19 640 20 1,926

Total 48 2,286 51 2,307 50 2,174 52 6,767

Public Less than 

2 years 230 7,881 225 7,704 235 8,320 245 23,905

2 years 723 26,662 719 26,850 724 26,601 759 80,113

4 years 53 1,922 54 1,944 55 2,000 58 5,866

Total 1,006 36,465 998 36,498 1,014 36,921 1,062 109,884

Source: GAO analysis of National Council of State Boards of Nursing data.
Appendix III: Detailed Analysis of Licensing 

Exam Pass Rates

Page 30 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

Table 7: LPN: Student Pass Rate and Mean Program Pass Rate, by Sector

2008 2009 2010 2008-2010

Sector 

Program 

length

Student 

pass rate

Mean 

program 

pass rate

Student 

pass rate

Mean 

program 

pass rate

Student 

pass 

rate

Mean 

program 

pass rate

Student

pass rate

Mean 

program 

pass rate

For-profit Less than 2 

years 77.3 73.9 c b, c 77.2 76 c c 80.3 78.6 c c 78.4 76.3 c

2 years

c

80 76.2 c c 81b, 78.8 c c 84.3 83.1 c c 81.9 79.6 b, c

4 years

c

80.6 86.1 c 80.9b, 84.1 c 84.1 86.8 c c 82.1b, 86.1 c

Total

c

79.3% 77.2% c b, c 79.9% 78.7% c c 83.1% 82.2% c c 80.9% 79.6% c

Nonprofit

c

Less than 2 

years 78.6 84.1 c a 79.3 81.4 c 80 80.7 c 79.2 81 c

2 years 82.3 84.9 c 74.4 80.5 a, c c 80.9 86.7 c 79.1 84.1 a, c

4 years 84.7 83 c 87.7 86.4 a 84.1 82.1 c c 85.6 81.5 a, c

Total

c

81.1% 83.9% c a, c 80.6% 83.1% c c 81.4% 82.5% c c 81% 81.9% c

Public

c

Less than 2 

years 86.9 87.3 a, b a 86.3 86.4 a, b a 88.8 89 a, b a 87.4 87.4 a, b

2 years

a

91.5 91.6 a, b a 92.1 91.8 a, b a, b 93.1 92.8 a, b a 92.2 91.8 a, b

4 years

a

89.4 89.3 a, b 89.9 89.2 a 91.8 91.6 a, b a, b 90.4 90.7 a, b

Total

a, b

90.4% 90.5% a, b a, b 90.7% 90.5% a, b a, b 92.1% 91.9% a, b a, b 91.1% 90.7% a, b

Source: GAO analysis of National Council of State Boards of Nursing data.

a, b

Note: To calculate the student pass rate, the total number of first-time test takers passing the exam 

was divided by the total number of first-time test takers for each sector for each year and overall. The 

mean program pass rate represents the average pass rate of all programs in each sector and was 

calculated by summing the individual program pass rates and dividing by the total number of 

programs for each sector, for each year and overall.

a

Indicates pass rate is statistically different from for-profit sector pass rates.

b

Indicates pass rate is statistically different from nonprofit sector pass rate.

c

Indicates pass rate is statistically different from public sector pass rate.
Appendix III: Detailed Analysis of Licensing 

Exam Pass Rates

Page 31 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

Figure 1: Nursing: Number of Programs by Pass Rate Range, 2008-2010
Appendix III: Detailed Analysis of Licensing 

Exam Pass Rates

Page 32 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

Table 8: Radiography: Number of Programs and Test Takers, by Sector

2008 2009 2010 2008-2010

Sector Programs

Test 

takers Programs

Test 

takers Programs

Test 

takers Programs

Test 

takers

For-profit 32 1,265 35 1,219 40 1,193 40 3,677

Nonprofit 89 1,270 89 1,283 89 1,277 89 3,830

Public 278 6,125 285 5,917 290 5,861 291 17,903

Source: GAO analysis of American Registry of Radiologic Technologists data.

Table 9: Radiography: Student Pass Rate and Mean Program Pass Rates, by Sector

2008 2009 2010 2008-2010

Sector 

Student 

pass rate

Mean 

program 

pass rate

Student 

pass rate

Mean 

program 

pass rate

Student 

pass rate

Mean 

program 

pass rate

Student 

pass rate

Mean 

program 

pass rate

For-profit 81.3% 82.9% b, c b, c 84.7% 83.2% b, c b, c 84.8% 84.1% b, c b, c 83.5% 82.3% b, c

Nonprofit

b, c

92 93.6 a, c a 93.3 93.4 a a 95.7 96.3 a a 93.7 94.2 a

Public

a

94.5 94.6 a, b a 94.1 94.1 a a 94.5 94.6 a a 94.4 94.2 a

Source: GAO analysis of American Registry of Radiologic Technologists data.

a

Note: To calculate the student pass rate, the total number of first-time test takers passing the exam 

was divided by the total number of first-time test takers for each sector for each year and overall. The 

mean program pass rate represents the average pass rate of all programs in each sector and was 

calculated by summing the individual program pass rates and dividing by the total number of 

programs for each sector, for each year and overall.

a

Indicates pass rate is statistically different from for-profit sector pass rates.

b

Indicates pass rate is statistically different from nonprofit sector pass rate.

c

Indicates pass rate is statistically different from public sector pass rate.
Appendix III: Detailed Analysis of Licensing 

Exam Pass Rates

Page 33 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

Figure 2: Radiography: Number of Programs by Pass Rate Range, 2008-2010
Appendix III: Detailed Analysis of Licensing 

Exam Pass Rates

Page 34 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

Table 10: EMT: Number of Programs and Test Takers, by Sector

2008 2009 2010 2008-2010

Sector Programs

Test 

takers Programs

Test

takers Programs

Test 

takers Programs Test takers

For-profit 10 756 15 896 16 980 18 2,632

Nonprofit 26 728 29 878 27 1,069 30 2,675

Public 565 28,230 571 31,038 575 33,750 615 93,018

Source: GAO analysis of National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians data.

Table 11: EMT: Student Pass Rate and Mean Program Pass Rates, by Sector

2008 2009 2010 2008-2010

Sector 

Student 

pass rate

Mean 

program 

pass rate

Student 

pass rate

Mean 

program 

pass rate

Student 

pass 

rate

Mean 

program 

pass rate

Student 

pass rate

Mean 

program 

pass rate

For-profit 60.2% 49.1% b, c b 51.2% 49.3% b, c c 61% 56.2% b, c 57.4% 48.7% b, c

Nonprofit

b, c

77.3 74 a, c a, c 68.3 65.1 a 68.6 67.3 a 70.9 70.3 a, c

Public

a, c

66.9 63.1 a, b b 66.5 63.8 a a 67.5 63.4 a 67 63.5 a, b

Source: GAO analysis of National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians data.

a, b

Note: To calculate the student pass rate, the total number of first-time test takers passing the exam 

was divided by the total number of first-time test takers for each sector for each year and overall. The 

mean program pass rate represents the average pass rate of all programs in each sector and was 

calculated by summing the individual program pass rates and dividing by the total number of 

programs for each sector, for each year and overall.

a

Indicates pass rate is statistically different from for-profit sector pass rates.

b

Indicates pass rate is statistically different from nonprofit sector pass rate.

c

Indicates pass rate is statistically different from public sector pass rate.
Appendix III: Detailed Analysis of Licensing 

Exam Pass Rates

Page 35 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

Figure 3: EMT Basic: Number of Programs by Pass Rate Range, 2008-2010
Appendix III: Detailed Analysis of Licensing 

Exam Pass Rates

Page 36 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

Table 12: Paramedic: Number of Programs and Test Takers, by Sector

2008 2009 2010 2008-2010

Sector Programs

Test 

takers Programs

Test 

takers Programs

Test 

takers Programs

Test 

takers

For-profit 5 43 5 74 5 75 5 192

Nonprofit 19 423 18 406 19 419 22 1,248

Public 347 5,474 348 5,621 349 6,170 383 17,265

Source: GAO analysis of National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians data.

Table 13: Paramedic: Student Pass Rate and Mean Program Pass Rates, by Sector

2008 2009 2010 2008-2010

Sector 

Student 

pass 

rate

Mean 

program 

pass rate

Student 

pass rate

Mean 

program 

pass rate

Student 

pass rate

Mean 

program 

pass rate

Student 

pass rate

Mean 

program 

pass rate

For-profit 41.9% 46.9% c 44.6% 38.6% b, c c 42.7% 42.7% b, c b, c 43.2% 43.7% b, c

Nonprofit

c

60.5 51.7 63.3 62.9 a, c 64.9 64.9 a a 62.9 59.5 a, c

Public 65.3 60.3 a 70.5 66.5 a, b a 70 66.5 a a 68.7 63.8 a, b

Source: GAO analysis of National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians data.

a

Note: To calculate the student pass rate, the total number of first-time test takers passing the exam 

was divided by the total number of first-time test takers for each sector for each year and overall. The 

mean program pass rate represents the average pass rate of all programs in each sector and was 

calculated by summing the individual program pass rates and dividing by the total number of 

programs for each sector, for each year and overall.

a

Indicates pass rate is statistically different from for-profit sector pass rates.

b

Indicates pass rate is statistically different from nonprofit sector pass rate.

c

Indicates pass rate is statistically different from public sector pass rate.
Appendix III: Detailed Analysis of Licensing 

Exam Pass Rates

Page 37 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

Figure 4: Paramedic: Number of Programs by Pass Rate Range, 2008-2010
Appendix III: Detailed Analysis of Licensing 

Exam Pass Rates

Page 38 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

Table 14: Surgical Technologist: Number of Programs and Test Takers, by Sector 

2010

Sector Programs Test takers

For-profit 8 225

Nonprofit 1 13

Public 20 393

Source: GAO analysis of National Board of Surgical Technology and Surgical Assisting data for Indiana and South Carolina.

Note: One of the two states included in our analysis changed its regulations in 2009, so we present 

data from 2010 only.

Table 15: Surgical Technologist: Student Pass Rate and Mean Program Pass Rates, 

by Sector 

2010

Sector Student pass rate Mean program pass rate

For-profit 29.3% 29.3% c

Nonprofit

c

n/r n/r

Public 72 72 a

Source: GAO analysis of National Board of Surgical Technology and Surgical Assisting data for Indiana and South Carolina.

a

Notes: One of the two states included in our analysis changed its regulations in 2009, so we present 

data from 2010 only.

To calculate the student pass rate, the total number of first-time test takers passing the exam was 

divided by the total number of first-time test takers for each sector for each year and overall. The 

mean program pass rate represents the average pass rate of all programs in each sector and was 

calculated by summing the individual program pass rates and dividing by the total number of 

programs for each sector, for each year and overall.

We do not report specific pass rates for nonprofit surgical technician programs because there were 

fewer than five such programs in our sample. However, the pass rates for students from the nonprofit 

sector was statistically significantly higher that that of students in the for-profit and publics sectors.

N/R indicates that we are not reporting pass rates because there were less than five programs.

a

Indicates pass rate is statistically different from for-profit sector pass rates.

c

Indicates pass rate is statistically different from public sector pass rate.
Appendix III: Detailed Analysis of Licensing 

Exam Pass Rates

Page 39 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

Figure 5: Surgical Technologists: Number of Programs by Pass Rate Range, 2010

Table 16: Massage Therapist: Number of Programs and Test Takers, by Sector

2008 2009 2010 2008-2010

State Exam Sector Programs

Test 

takers Programs

Test 

takers Programs

Test 

takers Programs

Test 

takers

Florida Combined

NCETM/ 

NCETMB

For-profit 78 2,580 79 2,423 64 974 90 5,977

Public 23 376 21 336 16 158 23 870

NCETM For-profit 20 24 22 59 22 147 43 230

Public 1 1 2 2 4 11 7 14

NCETMB For-profit 77 2,556 79 2,364 59 827 90 5,747

Public 23 375 21 334 16 147 23 856

MBLEx For-profit 11 18 48 434 57 2,423 65 2,875

Public 1 1 7 35 14 177 15 213

North 

Carolina

Combined

NCETM/ 

NCETMB

For-profit 6 363 6 307 5 72 8 742

Public 13 122 8 46 7 25 15 193

NCETM For-profit 5 17 3 9 2 3 6 29
Appendix III: Detailed Analysis of Licensing 

Exam Pass Rates

Page 40 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

2008 2009 2010 2008-2010

State Exam Sector Programs

Test 

takers Programs

Test 

takers Programs

Test 

takers Programs

Test 

takers

Public 8 31 4 12 4 6 10 49

NCETMB For-Profit 6 346 6 298 5 69 8 713

Public 12 91 7 34 5 19 14 144

MBLEx For-profit 2 2 5 428 7 550 7 980

Public 3 14 11 84 12 99 12 197

New 

York

For-profit 10 746 10 784 10 670 10 2,200

Nonprofit 2 190 2 168 2 257 2 615

Public 6 101 6 94 6 79 6 274

Ohio For-profit 21 357 23 704 21 660 23 1,721

Nonprofit 3 20 4 68 3 51 4 139

Public 9 62 10 133 9 147 12 342

Source: GAO analysis of data provided by the Federation of State Massage Therapy Boards, the National Certification Board for

Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork, the New York State Board for Massage Therapy, and the State Medical Board of Ohio.

Note: Ohio offers its massage therapy licensing exam in June and December. We were unable to 

obtain data from the June 2008 exam. Data presented from Ohio includes the second half of 2008 

and all of 2009 and 2010.

Table 17: Massage Therapist: Student Pass Rate and Mean Program Pass Rates, by Sector

2008 2009 2010 2008-2010

State Exam Sector 

Student 

pass 

rate

Mean 

program 

pass 

rate

Student 

pass 

rate

Mean 

program 

pass rate

Student 

pass 

rate

Mean 

program 

pass rate

Student 

pass 

rate

Mean 

program 

pass rate

Florida Combined

NCETM/ 

NCETMB

For-profit 56% 51.1% c c 48.7% 41.5% c c 59.4% 45.2% c c 53.6% 44.7% c

Public

c

72.1 73.6 a a 61 56.9 a a 79.7 83.4 a a 69.2 68.3 a

NCETM

a

For-profit 70.8 74.2 49.2 20.2 55.8 44.6 55.7 42.9

Public n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r 57.1 51

NCETMB For-profit 55.8 49.8 c c 48.7 42.1 c c 60.1 46.1 c c 53.5 45.4 c

Public

c

72 73.5 a a 61.4 57.1 a a 81 86.4 a a 69.4 68.5 a

MBLEx

a

For-profit 94.4 97 71.4 71.1 63 62.4 c c 64.5 65.3 c

Public n/r n/r 82.9 79 72.9 76.5 a a 74.6 73.7 a

North 

Carolina

Combined

NCETM/ 

NCETMB

For-profit 71.3 76.1 57 59.7 c c 80.6 65.6 66.3 76 c

Public 77.9 81.9 80.4 82.6 a a 68 72.1 77.2 78 a

NCETM For-profit 52.9 59.1 n/r n/r n/r n/r 51.7 58.3 c

Public 77.4 83.3 n/r n/r n/r n/r 81.6 89.2 a

NCETMB For-profit 72.3 78 57 61 c 82.6 67.5 66.9 77.2
Appendix III: Detailed Analysis of Licensing 

Exam Pass Rates

Page 41 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

2008 2009 2010 2008-2010

State Exam Sector 

Student 

pass 

rate

Mean 

program 

pass 

rate

Student 

pass 

rate

Mean 

program 

pass rate

Student 

pass 

rate

Mean 

program 

pass rate

Student 

pass 

rate

Mean 

program 

pass rate

Public 78 74 79.4 77 a 57.9 61 75.7 69

MBLEx For-profit n/r n/r 80.8 86.9 c 78.9 78.8 c 79.8 80.8 c

Public

c

n/r n/r 96.4 98.3 a 88.9 89.7 a 91.9 92.9 a

New 

York

a

For-profit 87 85.1 84.3 79.9 79.6 75.9c 83.8 81.1

Nonprofit n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r

Public 88.1 88 80.9 78.4 88.6 88.8a 85.8 84.6

Ohio For-profit 45.9 47.8 c 59.4 64.1 c 67 66.6 c c 59.5 58.9 c

Nonprofit

c

n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r

Public 72.6 63 a 81.2 79.7 a 85.7 84 a a 81.6 74.7 a

Source: GAO analysis of data provided by the Federation of State Massage Therapy Boards, the National Certification Board for

Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork, the New York State Board for Massage Therapy, and the State Medical Board of Ohio.

a

Notes: Ohio offers its massage therapy licensing exam in June and December. We were unable to 

obtain data from the June 2008 exam. Data presented from Ohio includes the second half of 2008 

and all of 2009 and 2010.

To calculate the student pass rate, the total number of first-time test takers passing the exam was 

divided by the total number of first-time test takers for each sector for each year and overall. The 

mean program pass rate represents the average pass rate of all programs in each sector and was 

calculated by summing the individual program pass rates and dividing by the total number of 

programs for each sector, for each year and overall.

We do not report specific pass rates for nonprofit massage therapist programs because there were 

fewer than five such programs in Ohio, Florida, and New York, and none in North Carolina over the 

2008-2010 time period. However, the pass rates for students from the nonprofit sector in Florida and 

New York were not statistically different than that of students from the for-profit sector or public 

sector. The pass rate for nonprofit students in Ohio was statistically significantly higher than that of 

students from the for-profit sector.

N/R indicates that we are not reporting pass rates because there were less than five programs.

a

Indicates pass rate is statistically different from for-profit sector pass rates.

b

Indicates pass rate is statistically different from nonprofit sector pass rate.

c

Indicates pass rate is statistically different from public sector pass rate.
Appendix III: Detailed Analysis of Licensing 

Exam Pass Rates 

Page 42 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes 

Figure 6: Massage Therapist: Number of Programs by Pass Rate Range, 2008-2010 
Appendix III: Detailed Analysis of Licensing 

Exam Pass Rates

Page 43 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

Table 18: Law: Number of Programs and Test Takers, by Sector

2008 2009 2010 2008-2010

State Sector Programs

Test 

takers Programs

Test 

takers Programs

Test 

takers Programs

Test 

takers

California For-profit 3 239 3 193 3 180 3 612

Nonprofit 22 3,334 22 3,282 22 3,331 22 9,947

Public 4 1,050 4 1,109 4 1,083 4 3,242

Florida For-profit 1 253 1 289 1 290 1 832

Nonprofit 5 1,080 5 1,067 6 1,280 6 3,427

Public 4 861 4 835 4 813 4 2,509

Georgia For-profit 1 87 1 104 1 135 1 326

Nonprofit 2 228 2 226 2 232 2 686

Public 2 335 2 340 2 363 2 1,038

Source: GAO analysis of publicly available data from the State Bar of California, the Florida Board of Bar Examiners, and the Supreme 

Court of Georgia Office of Bar Admissions.

Table 19: Law: Student Pass Rate and Mean Program Pass Rates, by Sector

2008 2009 2010 2008-2010

State Sector 

Student 

pass 

rate

Mean 

program 

pass rate

Student 

pass 

rate

Mean 

program 

pass rate

Student 

pass 

rate

Mean 

program 

pass rate

Student 

pass 

rate

Mean 

program 

pass rate

California For-profit 49.4% 41.4% b, c c 41.5% 39.3% b, c b, c 42.8% 34.2% b, c c 44.9% 40.3% b, c

Nonprofit

c

76.7 62.7 a, c c 69.3 56.2 a, c a, c 67.6 58.2 a, c c 71.2 59.5 a, c

Public

c

84.1 84 a, b a, b 87 87.6 a, b a, b 83.3 83.7 a, b a, b 84.8 85.1 a, b

Florida

a, b

For-profit 83 83 79.6 79.6 74.8 74.8b, c 79 79

Nonprofit 83.5 82.6 79.5 78.1 78.6 75.9a 80.4 77.2

Public 85.4 82.4 79 76 81.9 78.5a 82.1 78.7

Georgia For-profit 83.9 83.9 b, c b, c 82.7 82.7 c b, c 59.3 59.3 b, c b, c 73.3 73.3 b, c

Nonprofit

b, c

96.1 96.1 a a 88.5 88.7a, c 92.7 92.7 a a 92.4 92.5 a

Public

a

96.4 96.5 a a 93.2 93.2 a a, b 94.8 94.6 a a 94.8 94.8 a

Source: GAO analysis of publicly available data from the State Bar of California, the Florida Board of Bar Examiners, and the Supreme 

Court of Georgia Office of Bar Admissions. 

a

Note: To calculate the student pass rate, the total number of first-time test takers passing the exam 

was divided by the total number of first-time test takers for each sector for each year and overall. The 

mean program pass rate represents the average pass rate of all programs in each sector and was 

calculated by summing the individual program pass rates and dividing by the total number of 

programs for each sector, for each year and overall.

a

Indicates pass rate is statistically different from for-profit sector pass rates.

b

Indicates pass rate is statistically different from nonprofit sector pass rate.

c

Indicates pass rate is statistically different from public sector pass rate.
Appendix III: Detailed Analysis of Licensing 

Exam Pass Rates

Page 44 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

Figure 7: Law: Number of Programs by Pass Rate Range, 2008-2010
Appendix III: Detailed Analysis of Licensing 

Exam Pass Rates

Page 45 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

Table 20: Cosmetology: Number of Programs and Test Takers, by Sector

2008 2009 2010 2008-2010

State Exam Sector Programs

Test 

takers Programs

Test 

takers Programs

Test 

takers Programs

Test 

takers

California Barber For-profit 20 409 22 362 20 440 26 1,211

Public 3 29 3 44 3 43 3 116

Cosmetology For-profit 159 7,980 161 7,357 162 8,069 172 23,406

Public 28 1,784 28 1,527 28 1,617 29 4,928

Manicurist For-profit 81 3,160 70 2,230 78 1,716 98 7,106

Public 10 103 8 60 8 74 13 237

Esthetician For-profit 92 3,453 92 2,347 98 2,434 105 8,234

Public 15 702 17 570 14 533 17 1,805

Overall For-profit 171 15,002 174 12,296 175 12,659 182 39,957

Public 28 2,618 28 2,201 28 2,267 29 7,086

Florida Cosmetology For-profit 2008 data 

unavailable 

2008 data 

unavailable

65 1,216 77 3,327 79 4,543

Nonprofit 2008 data 

unavailable

2008 data 

unavailable

1 3 1 10 1 13

Public 2008 data 

unavailable

2008 data 

unavailable

42 432 42 1,182 44 1,614 

North 

Carolina

Apprentice For-profit 13 46 16 52 14 48 20 146

Public 34 255 40 317 39 245 45 817

Cosmetology For-profit 29 569 32 714 36 963 40 2,246

Public 42 349 51 495 51 698 53 1,542

Manicurist For-profit 11 69 10 45 11 55 23 169

Public 28 107 29 93 20 80 40 280

Cosmetology 

teacher

For-profit 14 20 14 21 20 30 26 71

Public 17 24 19 31 17 26 31 81

Esthetician For-profit 11 138 12 150 8 151 16 439

Public 22 180 25 187 25 160 32 527

Esthetician 

teacher

For-profit 1 1 3 3 0 0 3 4 

Public 4 4 1 1 3 3 7 8 

Manicurist 

teacher

For-profit 1 1 1 1 0 0 2 2 

Public 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 

Overall For-profit 35 844 35 986 41 1,247 46 3,077

Public 50 919 55 1,125 55 1,212 59 3,256

Texas Facialist For-profit 41 711 41 742 37 594 47 2,047

Nonprofit 1 3 1 2 1 2 1 7 
Appendix III: Detailed Analysis of Licensing 

Exam Pass Rates

Page 46 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

2008 2009 2010 2008-2010

State Exam Sector Programs

Test 

takers Programs

Test 

takers Programs

Test 

takers Programs

Test 

takers

Public 12 117 12 90 14 81 14 288

Facial 

instructor

For-profit 5 5 3 5 5 6 8 16

Public 1 1 2 2 1 1 4 4 

Hair weaving For-profit 3 8 3 7 2 2 4 17

Public 1 2 1 6 1 1 1 9 

Operator 

instructor

For-profit 54 132 57 158 46 95 82 385

Nonprofit 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 6 

Public 21 46 26 84 24 58 34 188

Manicurist For-profit 57 576 58 595 50 446 79 1,617

Nonprofit 1 13 1 15 1 9 1 37

Public 10 38 12 51 12 58 18 147

Manicure 

instructor

For-profit 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 

Public 1 1 1 1 0 0 2 2 

Cosmetology 

operator

For-profit 112 3,369 125 3,485 132 3,641 143 10,495

Nonprofit 1 24 1 30 1 31 1 85

Public 46 1,046 48 1,229 48 1,022 50 3,297

Shampooing 

and 

conditioning

For-profit 5 6 4 8 5 5 10 19

Overall For-profit 121 4,809 128 5,000 133 4,789 148 14,598

Nonprofit 1 42 1 48 1 45 1 135

Public 47 1,251 48 1,463 48 1,221 50 3,935

Source: GAO analysis of data provided by the California State Board of Barbering and Cosmetology, the Florida Department of 

Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Cosmetology, the North Carolina Board of Cosmetic Art Examiners, and the Texas 

Department of Licensing and Regulation.

Table 21: Cosmetology: Student Pass Rate and Mean Program Pass Rate, by Sector

2008 2009 2010 2008-2010

State Exam Sector 

Student 

pass rate

Mean 

program 

pass rate

Student 

pass 

rate

Mean 

program 

pass rate

Student 

pass 

rate

Mean 

program 

pass rate

Student 

pass 

rate

Mean 

program 

pass rate

California Barber For-profit 82.2% 84.2% 80.9% 87% 82% 79.9% 81.8% 87.1%

Public n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r

Cosmetology For-profit 71.3 69 c c 74.5 72.7 c c 69.2 68 c c 71.6 69 c

Public

c

80.3 78.4 a a 83.7 80.6 a a 79.8 74.8 a a 81.2 78 a

Manicurist

a

For-profit 79.5 81 c 82.2 79 78.6 79.2 80.1 79.9 c
Appendix III: Detailed Analysis of Licensing 

Exam Pass Rates

Page 47 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

2008 2009 2010 2008-2010

State Exam Sector 

Student 

pass rate

Mean 

program 

pass rate

Student 

pass 

rate

Mean 

program 

pass rate

Student 

pass 

rate

Mean 

program 

pass rate

Student 

pass 

rate

Mean 

program 

pass rate

Public 93.2 89.1 a 86.7 79 81.1 70.2 87.8 86.1 a

Esthetician For-profit 85.2 85.7 91.3 91.6 89.2 87.3c 88.1 87.4 c

Public 87.2 82.1 94 87.6 90.8 92.2a 90.4 89.4 a

Overall For-profit 76.6 73.1 c c 79.3 77 c c 74.8 73.8 c 76.8 73.9 c

Public

c

82.7 79.7 a a 86.4 82.2 a a 82.8 78 a 83.9 80.1 a

Florida

a

Cosmetology For-profit 2008 data 

unavailable

2008 data 

unavailable

36.8 43 c c 69.4 69.4 c c 60.7 62 c

Nonprofit 2008 data 

unavailable

2008 data 

unavailable

n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r

Public 2008 data 

unavailable

2008 data 

unavailable

53.7 55.8 a a 78.9 76 a a 72.2 69.3 a

North 

Carolina

Apprentice For-profit 93.5 89.3 78.8 85.6 83.3 74.9 84.9 85.2

Public 88.2 86 91.2 87.6 84.1 82.7 88.1 83.6

Cosmetology For-profit 75 71 c c 74.2 65.9 c 68.4 65.1 c 72 64.8 c

Public

c

88.3 86.1 a a 83.6 77.2 a 76.9 73.1 a 81.6 75.1 a

Manicurist

a

For-profit 71 70.4 73.3 60.6 65.5 55.1 69.8 62.7

Public 78.5 72.5 79.6 75.4 81.3 80.5 79.6 71.1

Cosmetology 

teacher

For-profit 35 28.6 57.1 61.9 50 45.4 47.9 50

Public 66.7 55.9 61.3 46.1 61.5 60.8 63 54.9

Esthetician For-profit 89.9 87.7 86 59.7 80.1 85.6c 85.2 73.6

Public 88.3 91 88.8 79 73.8 70.1a 84.1 83.3

Esthetician 

teacher

For-profit n/r n/r n/r n/r n/a n/a n/r n/r

Public n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r 75 78.6

Manicurist 

teacher

For-profit n/r n/r n/r n/r n/a n/a n/r n/r

Public n/a n/a n/r n/r n/a n/a n/r n/r

Overall For-profit 77.1 72.5 c c 76 70.5 c c 69.8 64.3 c 73.8 67.4 c

Public

c

86.6 84.1 a a 85.6 80.5 a a 77.9 73.1 a 83 77 a

Texas

a

Facialist For-profit 88 81c 90.2 86.3 72.6 69 84.3 80c

Nonprofit n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r

Public 88.9 90.8a 90 89.1 75.3 75.8 85.4 87.5

Facial 

instructor

a

For-profit 80 80 n/r n/r 50 40 56.3 35

Public n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r

Hair weaving For-profit n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r

Public n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r

Operator 

instructor

For-profit 48.5 49.1 51.3 47.3 51.6 45.2 50.4 42.9

Nonprofit n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r
Appendix III: Detailed Analysis of Licensing 

Exam Pass Rates

Page 48 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

2008 2009 2010 2008-2010

State Exam Sector 

Student 

pass rate

Mean 

program 

pass rate

Student 

pass 

rate

Mean 

program 

pass rate

Student 

pass 

rate

Mean 

program 

pass rate

Student 

pass 

rate

Mean 

program 

pass rate

Public 58.7 57 58.3 56.9 62.1 50.1 59.6 54.5

Manicurist For-profit 73.6 63.8c 77 66.9 63.7 58.4 c c 72.1 63.7

Nonprofit

c

n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r

Public 78.9 88.1a 80.4 82.2 81 82.9 a a 80.3 82

Manicure 

instructor

a

For-profit n/r n/r n/a n/a n/a n/a n/r n/r

Public n/r n/r n/r n/r n/a n/a n/r n/r

Cosmetology 

operator

For-profit 75.3 65.8 c c 76.6 71.6 c c 57.1 51.2c 69.4 61.8 c

Nonprofit

c

n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r

Public 82.7 84.3 a a 83.2 85.9 a a 57.7 59.1a 75.1 77 a

Shampooing 

and 

conditioning

a

For-profit 33.3 40 n/r n/r 40 40 31.6 36.4

Overall For-profit 76.1 68.2 c c 77.7 70 c c 59.5 51.6c 71.2 63.5 c

Nonprofit

c

n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r

Public 82.3 84 a a 82.2 84.9 a a 60.3 59.6a 75.4 76.4 a

Source: GAO analysis of data provided by the California State Board of Barbering and Cosmetology, the Florida Department of 

Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Cosmetology, the North Carolina Board of Cosmetic Art Examiners, and the Texas

Department of Licensing and Regulation.

a

Notes: Two of the four states had no nonprofit cosmetology programs, while the other two each had 

fewer than 5 nonprofit programs, so we did not report results for the nonprofit sector. However, the 

pass rate for students from nonprofit programs was not statistically different than that for students 

from for-profit or public programs, probably due to the small sample size.

To calculate the student pass rate, the total number of first-time test takers passing the exam was 

divided by the total number of first-time test takers for each sector for each year and overall. The 

mean program pass rate represents the average pass rate of all programs in each sector and was 

calculated by summing the individual program pass rates and dividing by the total number of 

programs for each sector, for each year and overall.

N/R indicates that we are not reporting pass rates because there were less than five programs.

N/A indicates not applicable because there were no programs or test takers.

a

Indicates pass rate is statistically different from for-profit sector pass rates.

b

Indicates pass rate is statistically different from nonprofit sector pass rate.

c

Indicates pass rate is statistically different from public sector pass rate.
Appendix III: Detailed Analysis of Licensing 

Exam Pass Rates

Page 49 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

Figure 8: Cosmetology: Number of Programs by Pass Rate Range, 2008-2010

Table 22: Funeral Directors: Number of Programs and Test Takers, by Sector (All Programs) 

2008 2009 2010 2008-2010

Sector 

Exam 

section Programs

Test 

takers Programs

Test 

takers Programs Test takers Programs

Test 

takers

For-profit Arts 4 148 4 128 4 127 4 403

Sciences 4 145 4 129 4 128 4 402

Nonprofit Arts 9 490 9 463 9 538 9 1,491

Sciences 9 481 9 463 9 535 9 1,479

Public Arts 43 761 43 760 43 756 43 2,277

Sciences 43 769 43 751 43 760 43 2,280

Source: GAO analysis of data from the International Conference of Funeral Service Examining Boards, Inc. on the National Board 

Examination for funeral directors/embalmers.
Appendix III: Detailed Analysis of Licensing 

Exam Pass Rates

Page 50 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

Table 23: Funeral Directors: Number of Programs and Test Takers, by Sector (Associate’s Programs Only)

2008 2009 2010 2008-2010

Sector Exam Section Programs

Test 

takers Programs

Test 

takers Programs

Test 

takers Programs

Test 

takers

For-profit Arts 4 148 4 128 4 127 4 403

Sciences 4 145 4 129 4 128 4 402

Nonprofit Arts 6 346 6 341 6 391 6 1,078

Sciences 6 342 6 339 6 388 6 1,069

Public Arts 39 686 39 648 39 683 39 2,017

Sciences 39 693 39 641 39 683 39 2,017

Source: GAO analysis of data from the International Conference of Funeral Service Examining Boards, Inc. on the National Board 

Examination for funeral directors/embalmers.

Table 24: Funeral Directors: Student Pass Rate and Mean Program Pass Rates, by Sector (All Programs)

2008 2009 2010 2008-2010

Sector 

Exam 

section

Student 

pass rate

Mean 

program 

pass rate

Student 

pass rate

Mean 

program 

pass rate

Student 

pass rate

Mean 

program 

pass rate

Student 

pass rate

Mean 

program 

pass rate

For-profit Arts 77% 76.3% 82% 78.4% 85% 83.2% 81.1% 79%

Sciences 82.8 81.5 86.8 83.5 85.2 84.5 c 84.8 83 c

Nonprofit Arts 80.8 83 79 77.7 78.8 76.4 79.5 78.8

Sciences 80.2 81.4 83.4 83.5 78.9 77.3 80.7 80.7

Public Arts 84.1 83.7 74.5 71.4 77.1 76.7 78.6 76.8

Sciences 81.3 81.2 78.8 76.2 73.7 75.7 a 77.9 77.7 a

Source: GAO analysis of data from the International Conference of Funeral Service Examining Boards, Inc. on the National Board 

Examination for funeral directors/embalmers.

Note: To calculate the student pass rate, the total number of first-time test takers passing the exam 

was divided by the total number of first-time test takers for each sector for each year and overall. The 

mean program pass rate represents the average pass rate of all programs in each sector and was 

calculated by summing the individual program pass rates and dividing by the total number of 

programs for each sector, for each year and overall.

a

Indicates pass rate is statistically different from for-profit sector pass rates.

b

Indicates pass rate is statistically different from nonprofit sector pass rate.

c

Indicates pass rate is statistically different from public sector pass rate.
Appendix III: Detailed Analysis of Licensing 

Exam Pass Rates

Page 51 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

Table 25: Funeral Directors: Student Pass Rate and Mean Program Pass Rates, by Sector (Associate’s Programs Only)

2008 2009 2010 2008-2010

Sector 

Exam 

section

Student 

pass rate

Mean 

program 

pass rate

Student 

pass rate

Mean 

program 

pass rate

Student 

pass rate

Mean 

program 

pass rate

Student 

pass rate

Mean 

program 

pass rate

For-profit Arts 77% 76.3% 82% 78.4% 85% 83.2% 81.1% 79%

Sciences 82.8 81.5 86.8 83.5 c 85.2 84.5 c 84.8 83 c

Nonprofit Arts 81.8 83.3 81.2 79.7 c 82.4 82.2 81.8 81.7 c

Sciences 83 84.3 84.7 83.9 c 84.5 83.7 c 84.1 84.1 c

Public Arts 82.8 82.5 72.5 70.1 b 77.5 76.9 77.7 76 b

Sciences 80.4 80.5 76.6 74.6 a, b 74.4 76.4 a, b 77.1 77.1 a, b

Source: GAO analysis of data from the International Conference of Funeral Service Examining Boards, Inc. on the National Board 

Examination for funeral directors/embalmers.

Note: To calculate the student pass rate, the total number of first-time test takers passing the exam 

was divided by the total number of first-time test takers for each sector for each year and overall. The 

mean program pass rate represents the average pass rate of all programs in each sector and was 

calculated by summing the individual program pass rates and dividing by the total number of 

programs for each sector, for each year and overall.

a

Indicates pass rate is statistically different from for-profit sector pass rates.

b

Indicates pass rate is statistically different from nonprofit sector pass rate.

c

Indicates pass rate is statistically different from public sector pass rate.
Appendix III: Detailed Analysis of Licensing 

Exam Pass Rates

Page 52 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

Figure 9: Number of Programs by Pass Rate Range on Sciences Section, 2008-2010 (Associate’s Programs Only)
Appendix IV: Briefing Slides

Page 53 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

Appendix IV: Briefing Slides 

Postsecondary Education: Student 

Outcomes Vary at For-Profit, 

Nonprofit, and Public Schools

Briefing to Congressional Committee Staff

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

United States Senate

Committee on Education and the Workforce

House of Representatives

November 2011
Appendix IV: Briefing Slides

Page 54 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

2

Overview

• Introduction

• Research Objectives

• Scope and Methodology

• Summary of Findings

• Background

• Findings
Appendix IV: Briefing Slides

Page 55 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

3

Spending on Federal Student Aid Has Increased, but 

Information on Educational Quality is Limited

Introduction

*Funding data is for federal student aid programs authorized by Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, which include loan 

and grant programs for students. Data beginning in the 2001-2002 school year are more reliable than data from previous years.

**When we use the term “graduation rate,” we include students who completed a higher education program and received a degree, diploma, 

certificate, or other formal award.

• The federal government’s investment in higher education has increased 

significantly—from $49 billion in 2001-2002 to $132 billion in 2009-2010.*

• Measuring the quality of educational programs (i.e., how much knowledge 

or skill students gain) is difficult and information is limited.

• The federal government relies on accrediting agencies to ensure 

educational quality, but accreditors collect varying types of data on 

student outcomes. 

• Using multiple outcomes that indirectly measure educational quality (e.g., 

graduation rates, pass rates on licensing exams, employment outcomes, 

and student loan default rates) can shed some light on the quality of 

education provided by schools.**
Appendix IV: Briefing Slides

Page 56 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

4

Student Characteristics Are Important When 

Comparing Educational Outcomes

• Available data indicate that for-profit schools have a higher proportion of lowincome, minority, and nontraditional students who face challenges that can 

affect their educational outcomes. 

• Students with these characteristics tend to have less positive educational 

outcomes than other students for a number of reasons.*

• Comparing student outcomes at for-profit, nonprofit, and public schools is 

challenging because outcomes can be associated with differences in student 

characteristics, as well as school type.

• For example, student characteristics—such as being low income or minority, 

being older, working full time, or having dependent children—are associated 

with lower graduation rates.

• Accounting for differences in student characteristics as much as possible 

allows for more meaningful comparisons between types of schools and a better 

understanding of the school’s role in contributing to student outcomes.

Introduction

*Research shows that being a racial or ethnic minority may be associated with less positive educational outcomes in part because certain 

minorities are more likely to have risk factors (such as being low income or having a parent who did not finish high school) that can affect 

educational achievement.
Appendix IV: Briefing Slides

Page 57 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

5

Accounting for Differences in Student 

Characteristics Can Be Done in Several Ways

• Statistical models: Statistical modeling methods, such as multiple regression, can be used to 

compare students in different sectors while statistically controlling for differences in multiple 

student characteristics that could impact student outcomes. This is among the most rigorous 

methods to account for differences.

• A multiple regression model can be used to compare graduation rates at for-profit, nonprofit, 

and public schools, while controlling for differences in age, race, and income.

• Comparing students within subgroups: Analyzing outcomes for specific subgroups can allow for 

reasonable comparisons, while accounting for a single characteristic.

• One can compare graduation rates at for-profit, nonprofit, and public schools for a subgroup of 

students, such as Black students or low-income students.*

• Focusing on graduates: Comparing outcomes for graduates of specific programs can also partially 

mitigate the impact of differences in student characteristics, given that some characteristics, such 

as race, age, and income, are associated with lower graduation rates. 

• Comparing outcomes (such as licensing exam pass rates) for graduates of a program (rather 

than for all students who enrolled in a program) can mitigate the impact of race, age, and 

income on the results.

Introduction

*This can be done even if the subgroup represents a larger share of students at schools in one sector compared to other sectors.
Appendix IV: Briefing Slides

Page 58 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

6

Research Objectives

1. What does research show about graduation rates, 

employment outcomes, student loan debts, and default 

rates for students at for-profit schools compared to 

those at nonprofit and public schools, taking 

differences in student characteristics into account?

2. How do pass rates on licensing exams for selected 

occupations compare among graduates of for-profit, 

nonprofit, and public schools?
Appendix IV: Briefing Slides

Page 59 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

7

Scope and Methodology: Review of Literature 

on Student Outcomes

• We conducted a literature review on comparative student outcomes at for-profit, 

nonprofit, and public schools.

• Outcomes included: graduation rates and post-educational outcomes, such as 

earnings and employment, student loan indebtedness, and default rates. 

• Our review covered a wide range of studies, including published peer reviewed 

articles, unpublished studies by academic researchers, and reports from higher 

education associations and the Department of Education (Education). We included 

studies that compared outcomes for students at for-profit schools and either nonprofit 

and/or public schools and that accounted for at least one student characteristic (e.g., 

race or income).*

• We found that research comparing student outcomes across sectors and accounting 

for differences in student characteristics is relatively limited. 

• We rigorously reviewed the data and methodologies used and only reported on 

studies that were methodologically sound. 

Scope and Methodology: Objective 1

*In addition, we included studies that used data from 2000 or later.
Appendix IV: Briefing Slides

Page 60 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

8

Scope and Methodology: Review of Literature 

on Student Outcomes (continued)

• Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (BPS): For most outcomes, we relied primarily on 

studies using Education’s BPS data, which tracks a nationally representative sample of first-time students 

for 6 years.

• BPS graduation rates are more representative of first-time students because they include part-time students 

and students who earn a credential at any school within 6 years.*

• BPS also collects self-reported information on earnings and employment status, as well as extensive data on 

student characteristics.**

• Since the most recent cohort started during the 2003-2004 school year, BPS does not include outcomes for 

students who enrolled more recently. 

• Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Some of the studies in our review used 

Education’s IPEDS data to examine graduation rates. IPEDS collects detailed annual data on enrollment, 

graduation, and school characteristics from all schools that participate in federal student aid programs.

• IPEDS graduation rates include only first-time, full-time students, and include only students who complete 

their degree at the first institution they attended. As a result, we gave greater weight in our report to studies 

using BPS data to calculate graduation rates. However, studies using IPEDS data had similar results.***

• National Postsecondary Student Aid Survey (NPSAS): Studies included in our review that analyzed debt 

levels used Education’s NPSAS data, which collects detailed information on financial aid and student debt 

for a large, nationally representative sample of students.

• National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS): To calculate default rates, one study used NSLDS data, which 

is Education’s central database for federal student aid loans and grants.

Scope and Methodology: Objective 1

*BPS includes students who transfer to other schools.

**While self-reported data may contain errors, it is unlikely that such errors would differ systematically between sectors and influence sector 

comparisons. 

***IPEDS graduation rates exclude students who attend part time or transfer to other schools.
Appendix IV: Briefing Slides

Page 61 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

9

Scope and Methodology: Analysis of 

Licensing Exam Pass Rates

• We analyzed pass rates for selected licensing exams to compare the performance of first-time test 

takers from for-profit, nonprofit, and public schools.*

• These exams were for: Registered Nurses (RN), Licensed Practical Nurses (LPN), 

Radiographers, Emergency Medical Technicians (EMT), Paramedics, Surgical Technologists, 

Massage Therapists, Lawyers, Cosmetologists, and Funeral Directors.

• We selected occupations in which passing an exam was generally required and significant work 

experience was not required prior to taking the exam.**

• We used Education data to select occupations that (1) had programs in multiple sectors, including 

the for-profit sector, and (2) had sufficiently large numbers of students graduating from these 

programs.

• During the 2008-2009 school year, RN programs were among the 10 largest associate’s 

degree programs at schools in each sector, while massage therapist programs were among 

the 10 largest associate’s degree programs at nonprofit and for-profit schools.

• Radiographer programs were among the 10 largest certificate programs at schools in each 

sector, while cosmetologist programs were among the 10 largest certificate programs at 

public and for-profit schools.***

*We focused on programs at schools that participate in federal student aid programs authorized by Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 

1965, as amended. 

**For some occupations, students must graduate from specially accredited programs in order to take required licensing exams.

***For programs that were at least 2, but less than 4 years in length.

Scope and Methodology: Objective 2
Appendix IV: Briefing Slides

Page 62 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

10

Scope and Methodology: Analysis of 

Licensing Exam Pass Rates (continued)

*There was no one generally accepted national exam in these occupations; some states use different and/or multiple national exams and 

others use state specific exams. We selected four states for the bar exam for lawyers, but were only able to obtain data for first-time test 

takers from three of these states. Pass rates for individual states are not generalizable to other states.

**No states license surgical technologists, but two states generally require them to pass a particular national exam to practice in the state.

Scope and Methodology: Objective 2

Types of Licensing Exams and Number of States 

Included in GAO’s Review • When possible, we used exams offered by national 

organizations to maximize the number of states in our 

analyses. We excluded from our analyses states that did not 

require the exam in an occupation. 

• For occupations that use state or multiple exams, we used 

Education data to select 4 states in which the numbers of 

graduates and distribution of graduates across sectors 

provided the best chance to detect any statistically significant 

differences that might exist between sectors.* 

• We did not directly control for the characteristics of test 

takers because this information was generally not available. 

However, focusing on graduates is one way to partially 

control for differences in student characteristics.

• We determined that these exam data were sufficiently 

reliable for our purposes.

• We conducted our review between November 2010 and 

November 2011 in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards.

Occupations National 

exam

State

specific/ 

multiple 

national 

exams

Number

of states 

included

in GAO’s 

review

RN and LPN  50

Paramedic  38

Radiographer  34

EMT  32

Funeral Director  32

Surgical 

Technologist**  2

Cosmetologist  4

Massage 

Therapist  4

Lawyer  3

Source: GAO analysis of data from testing entities.
Appendix IV: Briefing Slides

Page 63 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

11

Student Outcomes Vary by Type of Institution 

Attended

• Limited research suggests that, after accounting for differences in at least one 

student characteristic:

• students from for-profit schools had higher graduation rates for certificate programs, similar 

graduation rates for associate’s degree programs, and lower graduation rates for bachelor’s 

degree programs than students from nonprofit and public schools.

• students from for-profit schools had similar earnings, but higher unemployment than 

students from nonprofit and public schools

• bachelor’s degree recipients from for-profit schools had higher total student loan debt than 

bachelor’s degree recipients from nonprofit and public schools. 

• for-profit schools had higher default rates than 4-year public schools, but results were mixed 

when comparing for-profit schools with other types of schools. 

• Between 2008 and 2010, graduates of for-profit schools generally had lower pass 

rates on licensing exams than graduates of nonprofit and public schools.

Summary of Findings
Appendix IV: Briefing Slides

Page 64 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

12

Different Types of Schools Can Receive 

Federal Student Aid Funds

• Different types of schools can receive federal student aid funds. 

• Sector

• Public schools: operated and funded by state or local governments.

• Nonprofit schools: owned and operated by nonprofit organizations whose net earnings do 

not benefit any shareholder or individual.

• For-profit schools: privately owned and net earnings can benefit a shareholder or 

individual.

• Institution Level

• 4 year and above: Colleges and universities that typically offer bachelor’s and higher level 

degrees, but can also offer associate’s degrees.

• 2 year: Community colleges and other schools that typically offer associate’s degrees, but 

can also offer certificate programs.

• Less than 2 year: Vocational and technical schools that offer certificate programs, but 

typically not degrees.

Background: School Sectors

.
Appendix IV: Briefing Slides

Page 65 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

13

Most Students Attend 4-Year Schools

Background: Program Types

Source: GAO analysis of IPEDS data. 

• Since the 1999-2000 school year, about half of public school enrollment and 

almost all nonprofit school enrollment has been at 4-year schools.

• In contrast, enrollment at 4-year schools represented 37 percent of total forprofit enrollment in the 1999-2000 school year, but grew to 65 percent in the 

2009-2010 school year.

Enrollment by Institution Level and School Sector, 2009-2010

• In each sector—

for-profit, nonprofit, 

and public—more 

than half of 

students attend

4-year schools.*

*A 4-year school can also offer 2-year and less than 2-year programs. For example according to the most recent NPSAS data—for the 

2007-2008 school year—about 50 percent of students at 4-year for-profit schools were not enrolled in 4-year bachelor’s degree programs. 

By contrast, over 90 percent of students at nonprofit and public 4-year schools were enrolled in 4-year bachelor’s degree programs.
Appendix IV: Briefing Slides

Page 66 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

14

Enrollment in All Sectors Grew in Last

20 Years, but Grew Faster at For-Profit Schools

• Student enrollment

at all schools has increased 

since 1990, with most of the 

growth occurring since 2000. 

• Although most students 

attend public and nonprofit 

schools, enrollment at forprofit schools has grown 

faster in recent years.

• Some of the largest for-profit 

schools are reporting

decreased enrollment in 

2011 due to a variety of 

factors, including economic 

conditions and changing 

admissions practices.

Background: Enrollment

Source: GAO analysis of IPEDS data. 

Increase in Enrollment by School Sector, from 1990 to 2010 
Appendix IV: Briefing Slides

Page 67 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

15

Enrollment at For-Profit Schools Has Shifted from Small, 

Local Schools to Large, Publicly-Traded Companies

• Prior to the 1990s, for-profit schools were traditionally owned by 

local, sole proprietors.

• In the 1990s, large, publicly-traded companies began enrolling 

significant numbers of students. Enrollment in the for-profit 

sector is increasingly concentrated in these schools.*

• Schools owned by 10 publicly-traded for-profit companies

enrolled 50 percent of all for-profit school students in the fall 

of 2009.

Background: Publicly-Traded Schools

*A publicly-traded company is authorized to offer its securities (e.g., stocks and bonds) for sale to the general public, typically through a 

stock exchange. 
Appendix IV: Briefing Slides

Page 68 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

16

For-Profit Schools Enroll a Higher Proportion 

of Minority Students

• A higher percentage of students at for-profit schools are Black or Hispanic 

compared to other schools.

• Public and nonprofit schools enroll a slightly higher percentage of Asian/Pacific 

Islander students than for-profit schools.

Background: Student Characteristics

Source: GAO analysis of IPEDS data. 

Notes: Figures exclude students of unknown race. Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

Race of Students by School Sector, Fall 2009* 

*This is the most recent race data available from IPEDS.
Appendix IV: Briefing Slides

Page 69 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

17

For-Profit Schools Enroll a Higher Proportion of Students 

Who Are Older, Female, and Have Lower Incomes

Background: Student Characteristics

• For-profit schools enroll a higher percentage of students who are age

25 and older, female, and financially independent than nonprofit and public 

schools.

• Students at for-profit schools tend to have lower family incomes and a smaller 

proportion of their parents have attained an associate’s degree or higher.

Source: GAO analysis of 2008 NPSAS dataset. Source: GAO analysis of 2008 NPSAS dataset.

Percentage of Students with Selected 

Characteristics, by Sector, 2008*

Family Income and Parental Education of Students,

by Sector, 2008*

School 

sector

Age 25

or older Female

Financially 

independent

For-profit 57% 69% 76%

Nonprofit 28% 57% 34%

Public 35% 55% 46%

School 

sector

Annual

median family 

income

Percent of students 

with parents who had 

an associate’s degree 

or higher

For-profit $22,932 34%

Nonprofit $61,827 63%

Public $44,878 52%

*This is the most recent NPSAS data available.
Appendix IV: Briefing Slides

Page 70 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

18

Federal Student Aid at All Schools Has Increased in 

Recent Years, but Has Grown Faster at For-Profit 

Schools

Background: Funding

Source: GAO analysis of Education’s annual federal student aid 

funding data. Dollar amounts have been adjusted for inflation using the 

Gross Domestic Product Price Index and represent fiscal year 2011 dollars.

• Between the 2001-2002 

and 2009-2010 school 

years, federal student aid 

increased 325 percent at 

for-profit schools, from 

almost $8 billion to $32 

billion.

• During the same time 

frame, federal student aid 

has increased much less 

at other schools.

Increase in Federal 

Student Aid by School 

Sector, between 2001-

2002 and 2009-2010 

School Years
Appendix IV: Briefing Slides

Page 71 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

19

Limited Research Suggests that For-Profit School 

Students Generally Have Different Outcomes than 

Nonprofit or Public School Students

• Relatively few studies have compared student outcomes across sectors while 

accounting for differences in student characteristics.*

• Several studies that account for student characteristics, such as gender or race, 

suggest that students at for-profit schools had:

• higher graduation rates for certificate programs than students at nonprofit and public 

schools; 

• similar graduation rates for associate’s degree programs as students at nonprofit and 

public schools; 

• lower graduation rates for bachelor’s degree programs than students at nonprofit and 

public schools;**

• comparable earnings when employed, but higher rates of unemployment; and

• a higher proportion of bachelor’s degree recipients who took out loans, and generally had 

higher total debt.

• Two studies that account for student characteristics show that for-profit schools have 

higher default rates than 4-year public schools, but results are mixed when 

comparing for-profit schools to 4-year nonprofit schools and 2-year nonprofit and 

public schools.

Finding 1: Student Outcomes—Overview

*“Student characteristics” refers to both demographic characteristics, such as gender, race, or income, and to other characteristics and risk 

factors, such as not enrolling in school immediately after high school. “Students” refers to individuals who started their education at a particular 

type of school, whether they were still enrolled, earned a degree, or dropped out. 

**Some students in certificate or associates' degree programs may have transferred to higher degree levels before completing these programs.
Appendix IV: Briefing Slides

Page 72 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

20

Two Studies Show that For-Profit School Students 

Had Higher Graduation Rates for Certificate Programs

• One study shows that, when comparing students 

with a selected characteristic (e.g., male, Hispanic, 

or low income), those who started at for-profit 

schools generally had higher graduation rates 

from certificate programs than students who 

started at 2-year public schools (see figure).*

• About 36 percent of low income students who 

started at for-profit schools completed a 

certificate, compared to 6 percent at 2-year 

public schools. 

• Ongoing research from another study that controls 

for multiple student characteristics at a time (e.g., 

race, gender, age, income, marital status, delayed 

enrollment, and parental education) suggests that 

students who started in certificate programs at forprofit schools during the 2003-2004 school year 

were about 9 percentage points more likely to 

obtain a certificate within 6 years than students at 

other schools.**

*Analysis does not differentiate between 2- and 4-year for-profit schools or control for the program students start in or if they transfer to higher 

degree programs. Dependency status refers to whether students are financially dependent on their parents. Risk factors include: no high 

school diploma, delayed or part-time enrollment, financial independence, having dependents, being a single parent, and working full time. 

**Deming, D., Goldin, C., and Katz, L. (2011).Study used BPS data and controlled for the type of program in which the student started.

Source: GAO analysis of data from Skomsvold, P., Radford, A.W., and 

Berkner, L. (2011). Study used BPS data. Graduation rates are associated with 

the first school attended and are for the highest degree earned within 6 years. 

Percentage of Students Who Completed Certificate 

Programs within Six Years, for Students Starting at ForProfit and Two-Year Public Schools during the 2003-2004 

School Year*

Finding 1: Graduation Rates—Certificate Programs 
Appendix IV: Briefing Slides

Page 73 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

21

Two Studies Show that For-Profit School Students Had 

Similar Graduation Rates for Associate’s Degree Programs

• One study shows that students who started at for-profit schools during the 

2003-2004 school year generally had comparable graduation rates for 

associate’s degree programs as students who started at 2-year public schools.*

• This study analyzed graduation rates for separate groups of students based on 

a single characteristic, such as gender, age, or parents’ education level.

• Ongoing research from another study controlling for multiple student 

characteristics at a time (e.g., race, gender, age, income, marital status, 

delayed enrollment, and parental education) has not found statistically 

significant differences in graduation rates between students who started in 

associate’s degree programs at for-profit schools and similar students who 

started in associate’s degree programs at other 2-year schools during the 

2003-2004 school year.**

Finding 1: Graduation Rates—Associate’s Degrees

*Skomsvold, P., Radford, A.W., and Berkner, L. (2011). Study used BPS data and does not differentiate between 2- and 4-year for-profit schools or control for 

the program in which a student started or for transfer to higher degree programs. Graduation rates based on highest degree earned.

**Deming, D., Goldin, C., and Katz, L. (2011). Study used BPS data and controlled for type of program in which a student started. Enrollment in 2-year and 4-

year for-profit schools since 2004 has increased much faster than at other schools; findings from both studies do not reflect outcomes of more recent students.
Appendix IV: Briefing Slides

Page 74 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

22

Several Studies Show that Students at For-Profit Schools 

Were Less Likely to Graduate from a Bachelor’s Degree 

Program

• One study shows that when comparing students 

with a selected characteristic (e.g., low income 

or delayed enrollment), those who started at forprofit schools generally had lower graduation 

rates from bachelor’s degree programs than 

students who started at other schools (see 

figure).*

• Ongoing research from another study controlling 

for multiple characteristics at a time (e.g., race, 

gender, age, income, marital status, and 

delayed enrollment) suggests that students who 

started a bachelor’s degree program during the 

2003-2004 school year at a for-profit school 

were 12 to 19 percentage points less likely to 

earn such a degree within 6 years than similar 

students at other schools.**

• Several annual Education studies using IPEDS 

data also show that for-profit school students 

generally had lower graduation rates for 

bachelor’s degree programs.*** 

Percentage of Students Who Completed a Bachelor’s 

Degree Program within Six Years, for Students Starting 

During the 2003-2004 School Year*

Finding 1: Graduation Rates—Bachelor’s Degrees

Source: GAO analysis of BPS data from Skomsvold, P., Radford, A.W., and 

Berkner, L. (2011). Graduation rates are associated with the first school 

attended and are for the highest degree earned within 6 years. We included 

2-year public schools in our analysis because some students who started at 

these schools transferred to a 4-year school to complete a bachelor’s degree. aPercentage was not significantly different than at for-profit schools.

*Study did not control for the program students start in or distinguish between 2- and 4-year for-profit schools. 

**Deming, D., Goldin, C., and Katz, L. (2011). Study used BPS data and controlled for type of program in which a student started (e.g., 

bachelor’s degree). Study looked at 6-year graduation rates.

***Knapp, L.G., Kelly-Reid, J.E. and Ginder. (2011)—most recent annual report. Study did not include part-time or transfer students.
Appendix IV: Briefing Slides

Page 75 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

23

One Ongoing Study Suggests that Students from For-Profit 

Schools Have Similar Earnings but Higher Rates of 

Unemployment

Earnings were similar 

• Students who started at for-profit 

schools during the 2003-04 school year 

had similar annual earnings 6 years 

after first enrolling in school, compared 

to students who started at nonprofit and 

public schools.*

Rate of unemployment was higher

• Students who started at for-profit 

schools during the 2003-2004 school 

year and were no longer enrolled after 

6 years were more likely to have been 

unemployed for 3 months or more 

since leaving school, compared to 

students who started at nonprofit and 

public schools.*

Finding 1: Post-educational Outcomes—Employment

*Deming, D., Goldin, C., and Katz, L. (2011). Study used self-reported employment data from BPS. We refer to “students” rather than 

“graduates” in this section because individuals may have dropped out or still be enrolled. Authors included all students who were no longer 

enrolled after 6 years, but did not differentiate between students who completed a degree or certificate and those who dropped out. Earnings 

analysis was based on students who were employed 6 years after first enrolling in school and sector differences were not statistically significant. 

• Ongoing research controlling for multiple characteristics at a time, such as 

race, gender, age, income, marital status, delayed enrollment, parental 

education, and type of program in which a student started, suggests that:
Appendix IV: Briefing Slides

Page 76 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

24

Studies Show that a Larger Proportion of Bachelor’s Degree 

Recipients from For-Profit Schools Took Out Student Loans and 

These Borrowers Generally Incurred Higher Student Loan Debt

• Three studies show that a larger proportion of bachelor’s degree recipients from for-profit schools 

took out student loans and that they tended to have higher student loan debt than recipients from 

other schools, when comparing groups of students with a selected characteristic (e.g., male, 

Hispanic, or low income) across sectors.* 

• One study shows that, among low-income 2007-2008 graduates, the percentage who had 

borrowed was higher for students from for-profit schools (99 percent) than for students from 

nonprofit and public schools (83 percent and 72 percent, respectively).**

• Another study shows that, among 2007-2008 graduates, the percentage with loan debt of 

$30,500 or higher was greater at for-profit schools than at other schools. For example, 

among low-income students who were financially dependent on their parents, about 73 

percent of white students from for-profit schools graduated with high debt, compared to 26 

percent of white students from nonprofit schools.***

• However, in some cases the cross-sector differences in average amount borrowed were relatively 

small.

• One study shows that the average amount borrowed by Black 2007-2008 graduates from 

for-profit schools was almost the same as the average amount borrowed by this group at 

nonprofit schools ($30,990 vs. $29,184).**

Finding 1: Post-educational Outcomes—Debt 

*Loan debt is cumulative and includes both federal and nonfederal student loans, but not consumer debt. Little is known about how the debt of 

borrowers from different sectors compares for students who earn certificates or associate’s degrees or for students who do not graduate. 

**Hinze-Pifer, R. and Fry, R. (2010). Study used NPSAS data. Authors noted that about a quarter of student loan debt was from non-federal loans.

***Baum, S. and Steele, P. (2010). Study used NPSAS data. 
Appendix IV: Briefing Slides

Page 77 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

25

Bachelor’s Degree Recipients from For-Profit 

Schools Had Higher Total Student Debt 

Finding 1: Post-educational Outcomes—Debt

Student Loan Debt Amounts for 2008 Bachelor’s Degree Recipients Who Borrowed, By Type of 

School and Selected Student Characteristics 

Source: GAO analysis of a study from the Pew Research Center using NPSAS data. Loan debt is cumulative, includes both federal and 

nonfederal student loans, and represents the total debt incurred by graduates. 

Note: N/A indicates that the sample size was too small for meaningful analysis. 
Appendix IV: Briefing Slides

Page 78 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

26

Two Studies Show that For-Profit Schools Have Higher Default 

Rates than 4-Year Public Schools, but Results Are Mixed When 

Comparing For-Profit Schools with Other Types of Schools

• After controlling for multiple student characteristics at once, such as gender, race, receipt 

of financial aid, income, and degree type:

• Ongoing research and another study show that a higher proportion of students from 

for-profit schools default on student loans, compared to 4-year public schools. 

• Ongoing research shows that, in the years 2005-2008, the proportion of students 

at for-profit schools who defaulted within 3 years of entering repayment was 

about 10.5 percentage points higher than the proportion from 4-year public 

schools.*

• Another study shows that, for students who started school in 1996, the proportion 

of students at for-profit schools who defaulted within 6 years was about 6.7 

percentage points higher than the rate at 4-year public schools.**

• However, these two studies show mixed results when comparing for-profit schools to 

other types of schools.

• The ongoing research study shows that for-profit schools had higher default rates 

than 4-year nonprofit schools and 2-year nonprofit and public schools; in the 

other study, however, the differences were not statistically significant between 

for-profit schools and these others types of schools. 

Finding 1: Post-educational Outcomes—Default Rates

*Deming, D., Goldin, C., and Katz, L. (2011). Study used default data from NSLDS and IPEDS enrollment data to control for student characteristics and 

type of program student started in. In 2012, Education will begin to use the 3-year default rate as its measure for school federal student aid eligibility.

**Guryan, J. and Charles River Associates. (2010). Study used BPS data. Authors did not differentiate between 2- and 4-year for-profit schools or the 

type of program in which students enrolled (e.g. certificate program). This finding is supported by additional data provided by the authors.
Appendix IV: Briefing Slides

Page 79 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

27

For-Profit School Graduates Generally Had Lower Pass 

Rates than Graduates from Other Schools on Licensing 

Exams We Reviewed

• Experts noted that licensing exam pass rates are one reasonable measure 

of the quality of school programs. 

• On 9 of the 10 licensing exams we reviewed, graduates of for-profit schools 

generally had lower pass rates over the 2008-2010 period.*

• These nine exams were for: RNs, LPNs, Radiographers, EMTs, Paramedics, 

Surgical Technologists, Massage Therapists, Lawyers, and Cosmetologists.

• Data on the overall pass rates on the Funeral Director licensing exam were 

not available, but separate analyses of the two exam sections suggests that 

for-profit graduates had similar or better pass rates over the 2008-2010 

period.**

• There are some limitations to using licensing exam pass rates as a 

measure of the quality of school programs.

*We use “licensing exam” to refer to exams required to work in an occupation, although some are technically certification exams. Pass rates 

are for first-time test takers and are statistically significant unless otherwise noted. In some cases, test takers may not have formally 

graduated, but have completed most program requirements. In a small number of cases, data are presented for a shorter time period.

**The funeral director exam consists of two sections—Arts and Sciences—which may be taken together or at different times. 

Finding 2: Licensing Exams—Overview
Appendix IV: Briefing Slides

Page 80 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

28

Licensing Exams are One Measure of the 

Quality of School Programs

• Several experts and higher education association 

officials agreed that licensing exam pass rates are 

one reasonable measure of the quality of school 

programs.

• In the states included in our analyses, individuals 

must generally pass a licensing exam to practice in 

the occupations we reviewed.

Finding 2: Licensing Exams
Appendix IV: Briefing Slides

Page 81 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

29

Pass Rates on Nurse Exams

• Graduates with a bachelor’s or 

associate’s degree from for-profit 

schools had a somewhat lower pass 

rate on the RN licensing exam than 

graduates with these degrees from 

nonprofit and public schools.*

• Graduates of for-profit schools had a 

lower pass rate on the LPN licensing 

exam than graduates of public 

schools, but a similar pass rate to 

graduates of nonprofit schools.

• However, the for-profit sector pass 

rate was higher than the nonprofit 

sector for LPN test takers who 

completed 2-year LPN programs.

Finding 2: Licensing Exams

*Pass rates were calculated based on national data from the National Council of State Boards of Nursing on the National Council 

Licensure Examination for Practical Nurses and the National Council Licensure Examination for Registered Nurses exams. Data include 

programs in all states, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. Programs of all lengths 

were combined for this analysis. 

Source: GAO analysis of National Council of State Boards of Nursing 

data. Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. 

aDifferences between the for-profit and nonprofit sectors were not statistically 

significant.

Exam Pass Rates by Sector for All States (2008-2010)
Appendix IV: Briefing Slides

Page 82 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

30

• Graduates of for-profit schools had a lower pass rate on the 

radiographer exam than graduates of nonprofit or public schools.*

Pass Rates on the Radiographer 

Exam

Finding 2: Licensing Exams

Source: GAO analysis of American Registry of Radiologic Technologists data. Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

aDifferences between the public and nonprofit sectors were not statistically significant.

Exam Pass Rate by Sector for 34 States (2008-2010)

*Pass rates were calculated using data from the American Registry of Radiologic Technologists’ examination in radiography from 34 

states that require radiographers to pass this exam in order to practice in the state. Radiographers perform diagnostic imaging

examinations, such as X-rays, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and mammograms.
Appendix IV: Briefing Slides

Page 83 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

31

Pass Rates on EMT and Paramedic 

Exams

• The pass rate for graduates of for-profit schools on the basic EMT and 

paramedic exams was lower than that for graduates of nonprofit and public 

schools.* 

*

Pass rates were calculated using data provided by the National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians on its basic EMT exam from 

32 states and paramedic exam from 38 states. We analyzed data from 18 for-profit, 30 nonprofit, and 615 public EMT programs and 5 

for-profit, 22 nonprofit, and 383 public paramedic programs over the 2008-2010 time period. The basic EMT exam is the lowest level 

EMT exam, which every licensed EMT has to pass. 

Finding 2: Licensing Exams

Source: GAO analysis of National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians data. 

Exam Pass Rate by Sector for 32 States for the Basic EMT Exam and 38 

States for the Paramedic Exam (2008-2010)
Appendix IV: Briefing Slides

Page 84 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

32

Pass Rates on the Surgical 

Technologist Exam

• In the two states that require practitioners to pass the national surgical technologist 

exam, the pass rate for graduates of for-profit schools was lower than the pass rate 

of graduates of public schools in 2010.*

Finding 2: Licensing Exams

*Pass rates were calculated using data from the National Board of Surgical Technology and Surgical Assisting for the two states that 

generally require passing its exam to work as a surgical technologist in the state. The requirement to pass this exam was instituted in 

2009 in one of the states, so we analyzed only 2010 data. Pass rates are based on 8 for-profit and 20 public schools.

Source: GAO analysis of National Board of Surgical Technology and Surgical Assisting data from Indiana and South Carolina. 

Notes: To avoid identifying individual schools, we did not report data for programs or sectors with fewer than 5 schools. There were fewer than 

5 nonprofit surgical technologist schools in our sample, so we did not report specific pass rates for them. However, the pass rate for 

students from nonprofit schools was statistically significantly higher than that of students from for-profit and public schools.

Exam Pass Rates by Sector for Two States (2010)
Appendix IV: Briefing Slides

Page 85 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

33

Pass Rates on Massage Therapist 

Exams

• In three of the four states from which we obtained data, the pass rate of graduates of forprofit schools was generally lower than that of graduates of public schools.* 

Finding 2: Licensing Exams

aIn New York, the differences between the public and for-profit sectors were not statistically significant.

Source: GAO analysis of data provided by the Federation of State Massage Therapy Boards, the National Certification Board for Therapeutic 

Massage and Bodywork, and Ohio and New York. Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

Exam Pass Rates by Sector for Four States (2008-2010)

*We did not report pass rates for the nonprofit sector because in our data two states had no nonprofit programs and the other two had

less than five nonprofit programs. For some individual massage therapy exams in individual years, for-profit students had higher pass 

rates than students at other schools, but these differences were not statistically significant.
Appendix IV: Briefing Slides

Page 86 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

34

Pass Rates on the Bar Exam for Lawyers

• In two of the three states from which we obtained data—California and Georgia—the pass rate of 

graduates of for-profit schools on the state bar exam was generally lower than that of graduates of 

nonprofit and public schools.*

• In Florida, there were no statistically significant differences in the pass rates of graduates of forprofit, nonprofit, and public schools.**

Finding 2: Licensing Exams

*Georgia had 1 for-profit, 2 nonprofit, and 2 public law programs; California had 3 for-profit, 22 nonprofit, and 4 public law programs; and Florida 

had 1 for-profit, 6 nonprofit, and 4 public law programs. California allows students from nonaccredited law schools to take the bar exam.

**We also analyzed average school pass rates. For-profit schools in Florida had a higher average school pass rate than other schools, but the 

difference was not statistically significant.

Exam Pass Rates by Sector for Three States (2008-2010)

Source: GAO analysis of publicly 

available data from the State Bar of 

California, the Florida Board of Bar 

Examiners, and the Supreme Court 

of Georgia Office of Bar Admissions. 

aIn Florida, differences across 

sectors were not statistically 

significant.

bIn Georgia, differences between 

the public and the nonprofit sectors 

were not statistically significant.
Appendix IV: Briefing Slides

Page 87 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

35

Pass Rates on Cosmetologist

Exams

• In the four states from which we obtained data, the pass rate of graduates of for-profit 

schools was lower than the pass rate of graduates of public schools on the most 

common cosmetologist licensing exam.*

Finding 2: Licensing Exams

*Two of the four states had no nonprofit cosmetology schools, while the other two each had fewer than five nonprofit schools, so we did 

not report results for the nonprofit sector. For some individual cosmetology exams in individual years, for-profit students had higher pass 

rates than students at other schools, but the differences were not statistically significant. In one case, for-profit schools had a statistically 

higher average school pass rate than public schools—on the esthetician exam in North Carolina in 2010.

Source: GAO analysis of data provided by the California State Board of Barbering and Cosmetology, the Florida Department of Business and 

Professional Regulation, Board of Cosmetology, the North Carolina Board of Cosmetic Art Examiners, and the Texas Department of Licensing 

and Regulation. Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

Exam Pass Rates by Sector for Four States (2008-2010)
Appendix IV: Briefing Slides

Page 88 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

36

Pass Rates on the Funeral Director 

Exam

Finding 2: Licensing Exams

• Comparing the overall performance of graduates on 

the funeral director exam was not possible because 

data on the overall pass rate for both sections of the 

exam were not available. However, separate 

analyses of the two sections suggest that for-profit 

graduates had similar or better pass rates.

• Graduates of for-profit schools generally had a 

higher pass rate on the sciences section of the 

funeral director exam than graduates of public 

schools and a similar pass rate as graduates of 

nonprofit schools.* See figure.

• Graduates of for-profit schools had similar pass 

rates on the arts section of the exam as 

graduates of nonprofit and public schools, with 

no statistically significant differences.

Source: GAO analysis of data from the International Conference of Funeral Service Examining Boards on the National Board Examination for 

funeral directors/embalmers. We analyzed data on schools accredited by the American Board of Funeral Service Education (ABFSE). Although 

there were only four for-profit funeral director programs, we reported these data because some school-level pass rates were publicly available. 

We also analyzed data for 6 nonprofit and 39 public associate’s degree programs.

aDifferences between the nonprofit and for-profit sectors were not statistically significant.

Pass Rates by Sector for Sciences Section 

of Exam for the 49 ABFSE Accredited 

Programs Offering Only Associate’s 

Degrees (2008-2010) 

*Not all states require funeral directors to pass this national exam. However, for all programs included in our analysis, students must take 

this exam prior to graduating. As a result, we determined that these data represented a valid sector comparison of pass rates. A small 

number of nonprofit and public schools offer bachelor’s degrees in addition to, or instead of, associate’s degrees. We compared pass rates 

including these schools and the results were generally similar.
Appendix IV: Briefing Slides

Page 89 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

37

While For-Profit Graduates as a Group Generally Had 

Lower Pass Rates, Some For-Profit Schools 

Performed Well

• Graduates of for-profit schools generally had lower pass rates, but for some 

of the exams we reviewed, some individual for-profit schools had relatively 

high pass rates.*

• In 2010, 9 of the 40 for-profit schools in our analysis had pass rates of 100 

percent on the radiographer exam.

• In 2008, 9 of the 10 for-profit massage therapist programs in New York had pass 

rates between 75 percent and 100 percent.

• On some exams, although the differences across sectors were statistically 

significant, they were relatively small. 

• Eight-five percent of graduates of for-profit nursing programs with a bachelor’s 

degree passed the RN exam compared with 87 percent of graduates with a 

bachelor’s degree from nonprofit schools.

Finding 2: Licensing Exams

*In the majority of occupations, the pass rate data provided by testing entities did not identify individual schools. As a result, it was not 

possible to conduct further analyses on school characteristics that might be associated with higher pass rates.
Appendix IV: Briefing Slides

Page 90 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

38

Exam Pass Rates Have Some Limitations

• Relatively few graduates take licensing exams, because many occupations do not 

require a license. 

• Data are not available to compare the number of students who (1) begin a program, 

(2) successfully complete it, and (3) take the exam.*

• Some states have more stringent requirements for authorizing schools to operate, 

which can affect state level pass rates.

• Factors other than school quality may affect pass rates. 

• Schools may serve different populations of students. Although focusing on graduates can 

mitigate the impact of student characteristics, it may not completely eliminate the effect of 

these characteristics on test results. 

• Some schools may more deliberately “teach to the test” than others, while students in some 

sectors may rely more heavily on test preparation courses to pass required exams.

• Nevertheless, the federal government has a strong interest in ensuring that schools 

that receive federal student aid funds are appropriately preparing graduates for any 

required licensing exams.

Finding 2: Licensing Exams–Limitations

*A high pass rate may not provide complete information about the quality of a program if a large number of enrolled students do not 

complete the program or do not take the licensing exam. A program or sector may have a high exam pass rate, but also a high dropout 

rate if a large number of students do not complete the program, but those who do complete pass the exam at a high rate.
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 91 GAO-12-143 Student Outcomes

George A. Scott, (202) 512-7215 or scottg@gao.gov

The following staff members made key contributions to this report: 

Melissa Emrey-Arras, Acting Director; Michelle St. Pierre, Analyst-inCharge; Jennifer McDonald; David Barish; James Bennett; Deborah 

Bland; Jessica Botsford; Russell Burnett; Barbara Chapman; David 

Chrisinger; Lorraine Ettaro; Ashley McCall; John Mingus; Anna Maria 

Ortiz; Sal Sorbello; and Shana Wallace.

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(131038)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, 

GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125

Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs