In our Spring 2020 HiEd820: The College Student course, doctoral students had the opportunity to choose between writing a book review and participating in a course discussion. This assignment, created by Dr. Brittany Williams, was developed to help students explore academic writing forms beyond the traditional paper format and to give students an opportunity to interweave a book review with other assigned course readings. The following review was created by first-year doctoral student Kimberley Turner-Rush. Given the distance between the books’ publication and the changing realities of higher education in the current political landscape, this text remains relevant to all who seek to serve and support students on campus. If you’re looking for a quarantine read that can shed light on educational precarity and access issues, this book should be on your list.

— Brittany M. Williams, Ph.D.

LOWER ED: The Troubling Rise of For-Profit Colleges in the New Economy (Review)

Cottom, T.M. (2017). Lower Ed. The Troubling Rise of For-Profit Colleges in the New Economy. New York, NY. The New Press.

Many have viewed education as a way to change the trajectory of an entire family for generations to come (Song, 2016). Cottom’s (2017) book, Lower Ed: The Troubling Rise of For-Profit Colleges in the New Economy, provides readers insight on how students’ socioeconomic status plays a role in higher education. Cottom not only addresses attainment, but also the types of educational opportunities that are available to students as well as how the systems in place can both discourage their participation and take advantage of their desire for participation.

Championed as the great equalizer, higher education has been dangled like a carrot to lower- and lower-middle-class people as a way to climb the socioeconomic ladder to a better life.

Currently an Associate Professor in the Department of Sociology at Virginia Commonwealth University, Cottom hails from a professional background of working at both for-profit and not-for-profit institutions of higher education. Her experience provides insight into practices of enrolling students in programs that, more often than not, do not meet the expectations outlined and can often leave students in financial distress. Cottom’s disdain for these practices is evident as she proclaims, “the idea that higher education is a moral good is allowable only insofar as higher education serves market interests.” 

When we remove the notion that, for many, obtaining higher education is more about job attainment and less about the social good, we are forced to look in the mirror and ask whether or not the work of higher education institutions as we currently conceive it functions for all students who are enrolling with the hope of a brighter future. Cottom provides the reader with insight or themes impacting how we, as practitioners, interact with students as well as how we should be working with populations of students who need our services most.

When reading Lower Ed, themes that practitioners should consider emerge regarding processes for recruiting and enrolling students, labor market drivers for programming, and organizational structures to support students determined to complete a college education. These takeaways should continue to be at the forefront of discussions of higher education practitioners and shape how we serve our students. It is our responsibility to rethink both our purpose(s) as higher education practitioners and our understanding of what students want (and need) from our institutions.

Recruitment and Enrollment Practices

Cottom remarkably illustrates how the “flexible solutions” offered by the for-profit schools continue to exacerbate social inequities and foster discrimination.

Students enrolling in these programs are less likely to have attended good K-12 schools that offer college prep courses. They are more likely to face food and housing insecurities (AAC&U News, 2019) and less likely to have access to standardized test prep. By seeking education at a for-profit institution, they are more likely to take on higher debt to cover the higher costs.

The not-for-profit sector must find ways to allow flexible enrollment schedules, online courses, and online program completion as just a few of the benefits students can expect. Additionally, many for-profit institutions do not require developmental courses, so students start immediately on their chosen academic path. In addition to finding ways to better accommodate the for-profit demographic, we must do so in a way that reduces equity gaps as these students are more likely to fall into a group that Anthony Jack refers to as the doubly disadvantaged (2015).  Cottom indicates that students often feel pressured into signing enrollment agreements and that they do not fully understand the burden of this debt. 

Doubly Disadvantaged

Jack’s (2015) work compares the experience of students of color who enter college from local, public high schools (doubly disadvantaged) and those students of color who graduate from preparatory or boarding schools (privileged poor). These distinctions are essential in understanding the needs of the students we serve. The doubly disadvantaged have had little access to the resources that make college transition smooth and college completion attainable. These students are unaware that professors expect students to reach out if they need help and expect students to seek assistance when obstacles arise. Using the close relationships with our K-12 partners, not-for-profit institutions of higher education are positioned to have discussions on how to close these gaps. If we fail to do so, we are complacent and are further enabling a system that, as Cottom indicates, continues to exacerbate social inequities and fosters discrimination.

Labor Market Drivers

Students enrolled in for-profit institutions tend to be women, people of color, and single parents who are of lower socioeconomic status than their traditional college peers (Cottom, 2017). For many of these individuals, a college education provides preparation for a job, knowledge needed for a better job, or credentials required to pursue a coveted position and be competitive in the job market.

While access barriers are a large driver to for-profit undergraduate programs, why do for-profit graduate degrees continue to flourish? Cottom offers one example that focuses on a group of black women enrolled in online PhD programs offered mainly through the University of Phoenix, Capella University, and Walden University. These women, known as Sisters Working to Achieve Greatness (SWAG), are obtaining what Cottom refers to as up-market degrees at a much higher cost without the off-setting opportunities such as teaching assistantships or institutional aid. Up-market degrees are “credential sequences that start at the lower level, with higher degrees stacked on top as demand increases” (Cottom, 2017). The women of SWAG are spending $92,000 to $180,000 for degrees (up to and including the doctorate) through student loans. While these women see the cost as a good investment, others Cottom follows view education as a means to add letters behind their name for the perceived prestige those letters provide.

 

Organizational Structure and Student Support

One way that community colleges strive to support students is through innovation and wrap-around services such as childcare resources, tutoring, transportation, etc. (Dembicki, 2019).

Cottom counters with the fact that the understaffing of community colleges in service areas, overcrowding, and demands of remedial or developmental courses put strains on these institutions and leave students to overcome these obstacles on their own. Obstacles that students are less likely to face in the for-profit sector.

It is evident that the current not-for-profit systems are not meeting students’ needs in overcoming these obstacles. Much of this relates to the difference in funding structures between not-for-profit and for-profit institutions. To improve these systems and be better positioned to meet the needs of students, community colleges (and four-year institutions) will need a better funding model that offers incentives for the necessary changes to be made. Until then, Cottom offers focus areas (themes) that practitioners can use when developing or updating services and programs that serve the students most in need of our support. Perhaps we should all heed her advice.

References

AAC&U News. (2019). Majority of College Students Experience Food Insecurity, Housing Insecurity, or Homelessness.

Cottom, T. M. (2017). Lower Ed; The Troubling Rise of For-Profit Colleges in the New Economy. The New Press.

Dembricki, M. (2019). Wraparound services and student success. Community College Daily. Retrieved http://www.ccdaily.com/2019/05/wraparound-services-student-success/.

Jack, A. (2015).  “What the Privileged Poor Can Teach Us.” The New York Times.

Jack, A. (2019, June 13). On Diversity: Access Ain’t Inclusion. TEDxCambridge. https://youtu.be/j7w2Gv7ueOc.

Jack, A. (2019, March 6). The Privileged Poor. YouTube. https://youtu.be/ZXKKmPCZPDc

Song, X. (2016). Diverging Mobility Trajectories: Grandparent Effects on Educational Attainment in One- and Two-Parent Families. Demography. 53(6). 1905-1932.

U.S. Department of Education. College Affordability and Completion: Ensuring a Pathway to Opportunity. https://www.ed.gov/college.

 

About the Author:

Kim Turner-Rush is an instructor of business at Saint Paul College. She lives in downtown Saint Paul, a transplant from Cincinnati, OH. She holds a M.A. in Higher Education Administration and an MBA from Morehead State University. Currently, Kim is enrolled in the Higher Education Administration doctoral program at Saint Cloud State University.