Scarce research has been conducted examining why students choose to attend higher priced for-profit institutions over community colleges. The authors suggest that increased national concern over proprietary higher education warrants an in-depth comparative case study of the choice factors utilized by for-profit and community college students.
Research Question
The research questions guiding this analysis are: (a) Why and how do students choose to attend for-profit colleges and community colleges? (b) What factors were important in their decision? (c) What implications do these results have for rational choice and college choice theory?
Setting
Data were collected at one community college and one for-profit college in California that had similar vocational programs.
Subjects
A total of 137 for-profit and community college students (75 for profit, 62 community college) enrolled in a vocational nursing or surgical technician associate's degree program agreed to participate.
Research Design
The authors examine student college choice factors through a case study. The findings were developed from interviews, surveys, and focus groups.
Findings
The authors found that for-profit and community college students held varying conceptions of costs and benefits as they pertained to college choice factors. Three particular dimensions were highlighted in student responses—short-term and long-term gains, risks, and uncertainty.
Conclusions
This study illuminates the nuanced factors and goals that informed student college choice decisions. Understanding these distinct college choice considerations could help researchers, practitioners, and institutional leaders develop measures for institutional effectiveness and student success.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AplingR. (1993). Proprietary schools and their students. Journal of Higher Education, 64(4), 379–416.
2.
BaileyT., BadwayN., & GumportP. J. (2001). For-profit higher education and community colleges. Stanford, CA: National Center for Postsecondary Improvement.
3.
Barnes-TeamerT. (2003). Confirming college choice: How career aspirations and social capital influence decision-making of technical college students (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 305321394).
4.
BennettD. L., LucchesiA. R., & VedderR. K. (2010). For-profit higher education: Growth, innovation, and regulation. Washington, DC: Center for College Affordability and Productivity.
5.
BersT. H., & SmithK. (1987). College choice and the nontraditional student. Community College Review, 15(39), 39–45.
6.
BogdanR. C., & BiklenS. K. (2003). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education Group, Inc.
7.
BordenV. M. H. (2012). The for-profit sector as seen through the eyes of NCES. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.
8.
CabreraA. F., & La NasaS. M. (2000). Understanding the college-choice process. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2000(107), 5–22.
9.
CarlingA. (1992). Social divisions. London: Verso.
10.
CelliniS. R. (2009). Crowded colleges and college crowd-out: The impact of public subsidies on the two-year college market. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 1(2), 1–30.
11.
CelliniS. R., & ChaudharyL. (2011). The labor market returns to a private two-year college education (Working Paper). Washington, DC: George Washington University.
12.
CelliniS. R., & ChaudharyL. (2012). The labor market returns to a for-profit college education (NBER Working Paper No. 18343). Retrieved from http://papers.nber.org/tmp/2173-w18343.pdf
13.
ChapmanR. G. (1986). Toward a theory of college selection: A model of college search and choice behavior. Advances in Consumer Research, 13, 246–250.
14.
CharmazK. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
15.
ChungA. (2009). For-profit student heterogeneity (Munich Personal RePEC Archive Paper No. 18967).
16.
ChungA. (2012). The choice of for-profit college. Economics of Education Review, 31(6), 1084–1101.
17.
ColemanJ. (1973). The mathematics of collective action. London: Heinemann.
18.
CreswellJ. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
19.
DemingD., ClaudiaG., & KatzL. F. (2012). The for-profit postsecondary school sector: Nimble critters or agile predators?Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(1), 139–164.
20.
GarrityB. K., GarrisonM. J., & FiedlerR. C. (2010). Access for whom, access to what? The role of the “disadvantaged student” market in the rise of for-profit higher education in the United States. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 8(1), 202–244.
21.
GlaserB., & StraussA. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
22.
Government Accountability Office. (2011a). Student outcomes vary at for-profit, nonprofit, and public schools (GAO-12-143). Washington, DC: Author.
23.
Government Accountability Office. (2011b). For-profit schools: Experiences of undercover students enrolled in online classes at selected colleges (GAO-12-150). Washington, DC: Author.
HardinR. (1993). The street-level epistemology of trust. Politics and Society, 21, 505–529.
26.
HearnJ. (1984). The relative roles of academic ascribed and socioeconomic characteristics in college destinations. Sociology of Education, 57, 22–30.
27.
HeathA. (1976). Rational choice and social exchange: A critique of exchange theory. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
28.
HerrnsteinR.J. (1990). Rational choice theory: Necessary but not sufficient. American Psychologist, 45(3), 356–367.
29.
HollandM. M. (2013). Unequal playing fields, same game: The college application process for students at diverse high schools (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
30.
HornL. J., & CarrollC. D. (1996). Nontraditional undergraduates: Trends in enrollment from 1986 to 1992 and persistence and attainment among 1989-90 beginning postsecondary students (Report No. NCES 97-578). Washington, DC: NCES.
31.
HosslerD., & GallagherK. S. (1987). Studying student college choice: A three-phase model and the implications for policymakers. College and University, 62(3), 207–221.
32.
HosslerD., SchmitJ., & VesperN. (1999). Going to college: How social, economic, and educational factors influence the decisions students make. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
33.
IlohC. (2014). A critical comparison of website marketing at for-profit colleges and community colleges. NASAP Journal.15(2), 91–106.
34.
IlohC., & TierneyW.G. (2013). A comparison of for-profit and community college admissions practices through examination of phone communication. College & University, 88(4), 2–12.
35.
IlohC., & TierneyW. G. (2014). Using ethnography to understand twenty-first century college life. Human Affairs, 24(1), 20–39.
36.
IlohC., & ToldsonI.A. (2013). Black students in 21st century higher education: A closer look at the role of for-profit colleges and community colleges. Journal of Negro Education.82(3), 205–212.
37.
Institute for Higher Education Policy. (2011). Initial college attendance of low-income adults. Washington, DC: Author.
38.
JacksonG. (1978). Financial aid and student enrollment. Journal of Higher Education, 49, 548–74.
39.
Kien-hong YuP. (2011). One-dot theory described, explained, inferred, justified, and applied. New York: Springer.
40.
KinserK. (2006). From main street to Wall Street: The transformation of for-profit higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.
LincolnY. S., & GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
43.
LittenL. (1982). Different strokes in the applicant pool: Some refinements in a model of student college choice. Journal of Higher Education, 53(4), 383–402.
44.
ManskiC. R., & WiseD. A. (1993). College choice in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
45.
MerriamS. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
46.
MullinC. M. (2010). Just how similar? Community colleges and the for-profit sector (Policy Brief 2010-04PBL). Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges.
47.
Norris/Norris, Inc. (2010). Spotlight on community college admissions: Mystery shopping reveals important information withheld from prospective students. Pittsburgh, PA: Coalition for Educational Success: Preparing the New American Workforce.
48.
OsegueraL., KimballE., & HwangJ. (2011, November). Low-income students’ predictors of for-profit versus not-for-profit college and university enrollment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Indianapolis, IN.
49.
RosenbaumJ. E., Deil-AmenR., & PersonA. E. (2006). After admission: From college access to college success. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
50.
ScottJ. (2000). Rational choice theory. In BrowningG., HalcliA., & WebsterF. (Eds.), Understanding contemporary society: Theories of the present. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
51.
SolomonM. R. (2012). Consumer behavior (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
52.
SomersP., HainesK., KeeneB., BauerJ., PfeifferM., McCluskeyJ., … SparksB. (2006). Towards a theory of choice for community college students. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 30(1), 53–67.
53.
St. JohnE. P., & StarkeyJ. B. (1995). An alternative to net price: Assessing the influence of prices and subsidies on within-year persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 66(2), 156–186.
54.
TierneyM. L. (1983). Student college choice sets: Toward an empirical characterization. Research in Higher Education, 18(3), 271–284.
55.
TierneyW. G., & HentschkeG. C. (2007). New players, different game: Understanding the rise of for-profit colleges and universities. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
56.
TierneyW. G., & VenegasK. M. (2009). Finding money on the table: Information, financial aid, and access to college. Journal of Higher Education, 80(4), 363–388.
57.
TumblinR. S. (2002). The college choice process of non-traditional students. Toledo, OH: University of Toledo.
U.S. Department of Education. (1998). National Center for Education Statistics. Choosing a postsecondary institution (NCES 98-080). Washington, DC: Author.
60.
ZainalZ. (2007). Case study as a research method. Jurnal Kemanusiaan, 9.
