Dividing up the pie: vocational education versus “traditional” education

An article by Dr. Brian C. Mitchell on a recent Huff Post College blog got me thinking about the roles of vocational institutions versus the “traditional” institutions, specifically community colleges and public universities. Dr. Mitchell posed several questions about how institutions of higher education can strategically plan for their future. He suggested institutions need to do a better job of defining their core missions.

Dr. Mitchell also asked what institutions should stop doing. He asked, “Should colleges be in the food service, hotel, security, and technology business?”

My response to that question would be no. Not any more than for-profit vocational colleges should be in the degree-granting business.

The lines between the two types of institutions have been blurred ever since the Department of Education in 1972 granted for-profit institutions (almost) equal footing with traditional institutions (Simmons, 2013). Almost equal footing means equal access to federal Title IV funds, the lifeblood of for-profit institutions.

Allowing the for-profits access to federal student loan funding opened the door to abuses by many for-profit institutions, large and small, and prompted a series of Department of Education rules aimed at curbing fraudulent marketing practices, including the 90/10 Rule,  and more recently the Cohort Default Rule, the Incentive Compensation Ban (Simmons, 2013), and the Gainful Employment–Debt Measures Rule (Department of Education, 2011).

The for-profits have encroached upon the territory of traditional nonprofit private and public institutions by offering advanced degrees. Some for-profit institutions have been able to gain the coveted regional accreditation status commonly held by traditional institutions.

To compete with the nimble, deep-pocketed publicly traded for-profit higher education institutions, the traditional private nonprofit and public institutions began to offer programs in more vocationally oriented fields. They also adopted more aggressive marketing tactics to differentiate themselves.

Since the reelection of President Obama, enrollments have dropped at for-profit colleges, due in part to growing awareness of fraudulent business practices and disproportionately large student loan default rates (Huff Post College, 2012). However, students still choose for-profit vocational colleges over community colleges when they want to get in and out fast with an accredited degree. Clearly the for-profits offer something consumers want.

Furthermore, a study reported in USA Today in 2012 showed that graduates of vocational programs who earned certificates earned more than those who earned Bachelor’s degrees, suggesting that employers find value in employees with specialized certificates (Marklein, 2012).

The for-profits should stick to what they do well: vocational education. They should continue to have carefully monitored access to federal Title IV student loan funding. However, they should be restricted to granting only certificates and diplomas. Community colleges should be the grantors of Associate’s degrees. Advanced degrees should be the province of baccalaureate and graduate institutions. Vocational institutions should not be authorized to grant degrees.

 

References

Huff Post College. (2013, November 7). For-profit college shares tumble after President Obama reelected. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/for-profit-school-shares-_n_2088339.html

Marklein, M. B. (2012, June 5). Study examines vocational certificates’ big rewards. USA Today. Retrieved from http://usatoday30. usatoday.com/news/education/story/2012-06-06/vocational-education-degrees-pay/55410846/1

Simmons, O. S. (2013). For-profits and the market paradox. Wake Forest Law Review, 48(2). 333-360. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2282868

United States Government Department of Education. (2011, June 13). Program integrity: Gainful employment—debt measures. Federal Register, 76(113), 34386-34539. Retrieved from http://ifap.ed.gov/fregisters/FR061311GEDebtMeasures.html

Verified by MonsterInsights