Search News


Browse Archives

News

For- and NonProfit and Other Issues in Innovation

May 16, 2008

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

"For-profit or not-for-profit: Does it matter?"

Or, is that even the right question to be asking, challenged Ron Perkinson, formerly senior vice president of the Whitney International University System.

Given amazing global demand for higher education, undercapacity in the public sector in many countries, and interest from private investors, what are the right questions to be asking relative to achieving quality and meeting demand?

To ponder those questions and others, about 125 people, including private investors, government regulators and private university leaders, gathered in Washington this week for a conference on innovation in private education, hosted by the International Finance Corporation, a division of the World Bank that focuses on private sector projects in developing nations. Douglas L. Becker, chairman and chief executive officer of Laureate Education, Inc., kicked the conference off Wednesday by projecting a bright future for private education internationally – but also growing scrutiny en route to the sector's ultimate acceptance.

In the United States, at least, to attach “for-profit” to “education” is still, for better or worse, to ask for extra scrutiny, and the conference devoted an entire session Thursday to debate how meaningful the "for-profit" label actually is. "Does it matter?"

“The answer, I think, is simple. Yes, it matters very much. I don’t think anything promotes fiscal or organizational discipline more … than being for-profit," said Jorge Klor de Alva, senior vice president for the University of Phoenix/Apollo Group, Inc., America’s for-profit education giant.

“When done well,” Klor de Alva continued, “it makes possible a level of investment on the academic side that’s not just difficult, it’s almost impossible on the nonprofit side.”

Daniel Levy, director of the Program for Research on Private Higher Education, at the State University of New York at Albany, said that -- unlike his former SUNY colleague, Klor de Alva -- he wasn’t a businessman and wouldn’t give so clear-cut an answer. So Levy's answer as to whether the distinction between for- and not-for-profit matters? "Yes, but...."

“At least a lot of people think that it matters,” Levy said, pointing out that the question closely parallels the older question of whether being private or public matters (and, particularly in the developing world, that answer is yes and those differences, he said, can be stark). Levy noted, however, that among the confounding variables, he believes a large proportion of institutions that are legally nonprofit are, functionally speaking, for-profit.

In another session Thursday, panelists discussed innovations in private higher education more generally -- given the sector's flexibility, creativity and "lack of conservatism," as Sir Graeme Davies, vice chancellor and president of the University of London, put it.

Richard Miller, president of Olin College of Engineering, described for instance the college’s founding by the F.W. Olin Foundation in 1997 to confront what the funders saw as systemic problems in engineering education. Founded on a set of precepts -- including that there would be no tenure, no academic departments (so as not to inhibit collaboration) and no tuition -- the institution now has 35 faculty, 300 students, and an average SAT score around 1,500, Miller said. Engineering curriculums in general, he said, tend to focus too heavily on cramming in content, under the belief there is too much to learn. “There is too much to learn period,” Miller said. “What’s more important is to learn how to learn.”

“We’re teaching them to be engineers, not about engineering.”

Dave Taylor, dean of Limkokwing University of Creative Technology, subsequently spoke on behalf of the founder of Limkokwing, which has expanded to seven countries and has plans to be in 20 more countries within five years. The Malaysia-based institution recently opened a branch in London -- the first foreign, non-U.S. institution to open a branch in the United Kingdom, as the Guardian reported in 2007.

"We want to create two-way traffic,” Taylor said. "We believe it's important to reverse the flow."

“Strictly Western-specific education is no longer sufficient, even if you live in the West.”

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on For- and NonProfit and Other Issues in Innovation

  • Welcome to the new world
  • Posted by Edward Winslow , A "tired" refired Business Professor on May 16, 2008 at 9:00am EDT
  • Perhaps the most significant statement in the article is:

    “Strictly Western-specific education is no longer sufficient, even if you live in the West.”

    So many esoteric educators persist in living in the dream world of the origins of ideas in the world came through the rise of western civilization. Examining history--all of history--we are seeing the progression of history coming full cycle and now must examine all disciplines globally. Phillip Bobbitt expresses this view with the best analysis to date(however enlightening or depressing) in "Terror and Consent".

    The ability to build a world that will continue to grow and flourish will depend, among other concepts, on a good (or great) higher education model that can deliver. For Profits have shown this. Welcome to the new consortium of "market states" that are replacing nation states.

  • University of Phoenix
  • Posted by Lawrence on May 16, 2008 at 11:05am EDT
  • I believe that University of Phoenix does more for society than people give them credit for. One must realize the amount of students that are being educated to undertand such fact fully. Just because people choose to complete their degree outside of the classroom does not mean its wrong.

  • Pragmatism
  • Posted by Raymond on May 16, 2008 at 11:05am EDT
  • I notice the privatization of education (which seems to me always after public funds) is based on global expansions into utilitarian or strictly market-useful skills (or learning ongoing skills acquistion--"learning how to learn").

    Good.

    It is left to a public sector--also corporatized and also about profit--to teach non-utilitarian forms of learning.

    Maybe not so good. Ultimately, I would argue, all learning is actually useful, if not readily marketable. If we continue to fixate education too narrowly on only what a group of absentee investors can profitably add to their portfolios, we may be in dire trouble down the road.

    See Joel Bakan's book _The Corporation_: The Pathological Pursuit of Power and Profit_.
    He develops an insight that only a distanced, "non-utilitarian," philosophical perspective
    can offer: the possibility that corporations--useful as they are--are also inherently sociopathic.

  • Afterthought
  • Posted by Raymond on May 16, 2008 at 11:30am EDT
  • Which is to say, maybe some of what the market deems useful is really destructive.

    If the for-profit sector becomes the vanguard of the non-profit sector (and I think it was doing that even before the rise of Education Inc.) what will become of our ability to make the distinction?

  • For-profits, yes BUT
  • Posted by Alan Contreras at Eugene, Oregon on May 16, 2008 at 1:20pm EDT
  • Keep in mind that there are different kinds of for-profit colleges. In my work as a college regulator I rarely see problems with those that have sufficient capital and regional accreditation.

    The main problems come with the smaller schools and low-end chain schools that are always operating at the bleeding edge of their financial capacity. In that context, school leadership often thinks that for-profit means that they can and will be profitable *all the time* and will not go through downturns. These schools, sometimes owned by investors who have no idea how colleges work, get into severe difficulty during downturns, and sometimes do inappropriate or illegal things in recruitment and financial aid.

    The low-end schools often admit people who should not be in college at all but who have the ability to generate federal financial aid. In fairness, so do public community colleges.

    I would like to see the for-profit sector as a whole adopt some guidelines and norms as to appropriate practices in recruitment, admissions and financial aid. My office recently required a school to refund nearly half a million in improperly acquired financial aid. That kind of thing has to stop.

  • The role of accreditation
  • Posted by Tom Wickenden on May 17, 2008 at 10:45am EDT
  • The recent financial-aid scandals demonstrate that conflict of interest problems are not more prevalent among for-profits than among publics and not-for-profits. Also, the large corporate for-profits have as many issues with allocation of resources as small start-up schools have with availability of resources. A significant role is played by accreditors. Nationally accredited schools are subject to detailed, rigorous criteria for ethical recruiting, admissions, financial aid, etc., while regionally accredited schools (including some for-profits) are subject to criteria that are typically more general. Of course, the U.S. Department of Education is the ultimate regulator of financial aid practices, but they look to accreditors for assistance. State regulators also play a role, but only a few states (like Oregon) have sufficient reason or resources to provide effective oversight, and some are also looking to accreditors for assistance.