most common at the for-profit colleges. Providing degree programs in areas such as these are generally profitable. These programs often require few capital resources, and can be effectively taught by industry practitioners instead of higher paid research PhDs (Bennett et al., 2010). Most for-profit institutions describe faculty in traditional and follow an academic calendar (quarter, trimester, or semester). Adjunct faculty tend to be the highest population of instructors, which is similar to what might be expected at a community college. An absence of shared governance, academic freedom, and tenure is common at for-profit institutions (Tierney, 2011). Kinser (2005) noted that more than half of for-profit colleges offer students the opportunity to take accelerated programs or study in shortened terms. Additionally, few of these institutions have college-sponsored athletics, student clubs, or residential facilities to enhance the social aspects and culture of the institution. What the quality of a for-profit education? Most of the research in the literature was based on the economic impact of a for-profit education and gainful employment concerns (e.g., Deming et al., 2012, 2013; Denice, 2015; Dundon, 2015, Schade, 2014). Cellini and Chaudhary (2014) assessed the quality of for-profit education by estimating the labor market returns to associate degree programs at for-profit colleges and found that for-profit students experienced a ten percent increase in weekly earnings, or a four percent return per year of education, when compared with high school graduates. However, the researchers discovered that the for-profit returns were lower than returns to public community colleges (Cellini & Chaudhary, 2014). Few studies in the literature that address the quality of a for-profit education from a student perspective.
MacQueen, G. (2012). Closing The gainful employment rule as over-regulation of for-profit higher education that will restrict access to higher education for America's poor. Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law & Policy,19(2), 309-330. Manski, C. F. &Wise, D. A. (1983). College choice in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. May, T. (2002). Qualitative research design. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. McDonough, P. M. (1997). Choosing colleges: how social class and schools structure opportunity. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Midwest Technical Institute. (n.d.). Student services. Retrieved from https://midwesttech.edu/student-services/ Mills, V. L. (1995). Staying as a repurchase decision: A study of students who stay and students who leave from a proprietary school setting (Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, 1995). Dissertation Abstracts International,56, 07-A. Mitchell, J. (2016, May 31). The average student at a for-profit college was worse off after attending [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/05/31/the-average-student-at-a-for-profit- college-was-worse-off-than-before-attending-school/ R. W. (1995). Proprietary schools – Are they heroes or villains in education? The Journal of Technology Studies, 2(1), 60-65.
persistence: A further investigation. Journal of Educational Research, 72(4). Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students. Vol. 2: A decade of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Pautler, A., Roufa, S., & Thompson, J. (1988). Postsecondary technical education: The proprietary sector, Journal of Studies in Technical Careers,10 (1), 61-71. Pelletier, S. G. (2010). Success for adult students. Retrieved from http://www.aascu.org/uploadedFiles/AASCU/Content/Root/MediaAndPublication s/PublicPurposeMagazines/Issue/10fall_adultstudents.pdf Polit, D.F., & Beck, C.T. (2006). Essentials of nursing research: Methods, appraisal, and utilization (6th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Raisman, N. (2013). The cost of college attrition at four-year colleges & universities. Retrieved from Educational Policy Institute website: http://www.educationalpolicy.org/pdf/1302_PolicyPerspectives.pdf Reason, R. D. (2003). Student variables that predict retention: Recent research and new developments. NASPA Journal, 40, 172–191. Reason, R. D., Terenzini, P. T., and Domingo, R. J. (2005). First things first: Developing academic competence in the first year of college. Paper presented at the annual meeting for the Association for Institutional Research, San Diego, CA. Rendon, L. (1995, May). Facilitating retention and transfer for the first generation students in community colleges. Paper presented at the New Mexico Institute, Rural Community College Initiative, Espanola, NM.