Unit 2 Materials
Table of Contents
Prompt & Guidelines for Organization of Paper 2.................................................................................... 2
RUBRIC (& possible Peer Review form) for Project 2 ............................................................................ 3
RUBRIC 2 .................................................................................................................................................................. 4
Template phrases: ................................................................................................................................................ 5
Templates for Introducing all Three Authors ............................................................................................ 6
MODEL: Tough, KIPP Schools, & Chapter 9................................................................................................. 8
Prospectus for Paper 2 (1 -2 pages) .............................................................................................................. 9
Framework for Body paragraphs ................................................................................................................ 10
Framework for Body paragraphs + Sample Body paragraphs ......................................................... 13
Peer Review.......................................................................................................................................................... 15
TIPS FOR DOING WELL ON ASSIGNMENT 2 ........................................................................................... 17
WRITING TIPS FOR CAREY PAPER ............................................................................................................. 18
Draft Argument Map ......................................................................................................................................... 20
Sample Carey Paper 1....................................................................................................................................... 22
Sample Carey Paper 2....................................................................................................................................... 25
Sample Carey Paper 3....................................................................................................................................... 30
Sample Carey Paper 4....................................................................................................................................... 32
1
Prompt & Guidelines for Organization of Paper 2
ASSIGNMENT PROMPT
Length 7 – 8 pages
For this paper you will select three outside sources that make arguments that connect with Boyd’s. You
will use these outside texts to illustrate, extend, challenge, qualify, or complicate one of the arguments
advanced in the text.
Criteria for Evaluation:
accurately describe the author’s project and argument
signal the topic and give a clear indication of how the paper will proceed
locate claims and/or evidence from (at least) 3 outside sources that connect with Boyd’s argument
analyze these claims/evidence in order to show how they illustrate, clarify, extend, or complicate
arguments found in Boyd
5. present evidence that explains in detail how these texts illustrate, clarify, extend, or complicate
Boyd’s arguments
6. use an effective structure that carefully guides the reader from one idea to the next and be
thoroughly edited so that sentences are readable and appropriate for an academic paper
1.
2.
3.
4.
BREAKDOWN/ORGANIZATION
Introduction
 Introduce the topic/establish exigency, significance, or advance a “centrality claim”
 Introduce the rhetorical context
o (think Rhetorical Situation: author, text, context, audience, purpose)
 Briefly introduce Boyd’s project & argument.
 Metadiscourse – explain YOUR purpose and project (what your paper will do)
State the direction of your analysis and the steps you will take to get there. (For example, “In my
analysis of Boyd’s text I will examine [what?] and argue [what?].”) (This orients the reader, but
can also be where you reveal your own stance.)
Body
1. State one of Boyd’s claims and briefly describe how she supports the claim.
2. Give a salient example, and nail your example with a quote.
3. Explain the quotation by telling what he is doing, and delineating the ways it ties back to his
argument.
4. Introduce the outside text/author, and explain how the secondary text can be read as extending,
complicating, challenging, illustrating, or qualifying Boyd’s argument. Use quotes and examples
from both Boyd & the outside text to support your analysis.
5. Explain and/or discuss the significance of the connection
Conclusion: This is the “so what, who cares?” part of your essay. You have several options. You can
 Consider as a whole what the other texts DO to Boyd’s claims.
 Consider the strengths/weaknesses, and effectiveness of Boyd’s claims and strategies.
 Comment on how this argument has affected you as an individual and/or how it might affect other
viewers.
 Discuss where this analysis leads you – what position do you know have on the issue?
2
RUBRIC (& possible Peer Review form) for Project 2
Student __________________________________
Points
Possible
RWS 100 Grading Rubric for Project #2
Criteria
Draft
Introduces topic at hand, and author. Gives an account the rhetorical
situation and Boyd’s overall argument. Comments:
10
5
60
10
5
5
5
Has a clear thesis statement which makes an argument and indicates
how the paper will proceed. (metadiscourse) Comments:
Analyzes Boyd’s claims and/or evidence through the lens of outside
texts and demonstrates explicitly how they are being complicated,
extended, qualified, challenged or illustrated. Does not merely give
general discussion of what texts are “about,” but makes genuine
connections using verbs and phrases from the reader. Comments:
Describes/summarizes connections between the texts and the
significance of these connections; discusses what has been learned
about the topic, as well as arguments and how they can be complicated,
illustrated, qualified, or extended. (Conclusion)
Comments:
Uses an effective structure that carefully guides the reader from one
idea to the next (smoothly integrates information and evidence from
sources and Boyd and transitions between sentences and paragraphs).
Comments:
Implements academic stylistic conventions, to include: sentences and
paragraphs are cohesive, fully developed, unified and focused. All
quotations are introduced, integrated, and explained.
Comments:
Carefully edited for grammatical errors as well as typos.
Paper/Works Cited page follows MLA format (lack of careful
proofreading and MLA format can result in the loss of up to 10 points).
Comments:
Total
Possible
100
Final Comments
Your
Total
3
Final
RUBRIC 2
Student __________________________________
Points
15
60
10
15
RWS 100 Grading Rubric for Project #2
Criteria
INTRODUCTION:
1. Introduces topic/gets reader’s attention.
2. Provides an overview of Boyd, his project and argument.
3. Describes your project/what the paper will do (metadiscourse). May include brief
description of two/three outside texts and how the paper will use them to analyze
Boyd (can make this part of body section instead if prefer).
BODY:
1. Clearly and fully describes one of Boyd’s claims so that a reader unfamiliar with
the text can understand it.
2. Includes at least one quotation to support your interpretation of the claim – quote
is introduced, integrated and explicitly explained (e.g. “What the author is saying
here is…in other words…”)
3. Transitions from “Why Do You Think They Are Called For-Profit Colleges?” to
outside text (e.g. “Boyd clearly wants the audience to believe X…However, author Z
provides a useful point of contrast, and
can be read as extending/complicating etc. Boyd’s claim…”)
4. Briefly introduces first outside text, author and project. Clearly and fully describes
the claim or evidence so that a reader unfamiliar with the text can understand it.
5. Includes at least one quotation to support your reading of this claim/evidence –
quote is introduced, integrated and explicitly explained (e.g. “What outside text Z is
saying here is…in other words…”)
6. Analyzes in detail how the outside text can be read as complicating, extending,
illustrating, or qualifying a claim found in the movie. This will require you to
provide an interpretation of how the text can be read, and present your case, i.e.
support your interpretation (“I would like to suggest that this claim complicates
Boyd because it presents evidence that undermines aspect X of the claim…author
A’s article can also be read as exposing a blindspot in Boyd’s position, something he
fails to consider…For example, while Boyd says Z, author A points to X…author A
writes…This clearly shows C”). Imagine you are trying to convince a jury – you
must do everything you can to be as persuasive as possible. MOST IMPORTANT
PART OF PAPER!
(REPEATS 1-6 FOR EACH OUTSIDE TEXT BEING DISCUSSED)
CONCLUSION: summarizes connections between the texts & the significance of
these connections; discusses what has been learned about the topic, and/or how
arguments can be complicated, illustrated, clarified, or extended.
MECHANICS/FORMATTING: Maintains focus, keeps cohesion tight, ideas are
fully developed, transitions guide reader (see “Rules of Thumb” handout/handbook)
- maintains focus within paragraphs
- transitions clearly between ideas/sections
- creates coherence within sentences and paragraphs
- Carefully edited for grammatical errors as well as typos. (Each typo or new
grammatical error will result in the loss of one point, not to exceed 5 points).
- Paper/Works Cited properly formatted – MLA, APA or format used in your major
4
Score
Total
100
Your
Total
Template phrases:
1) Author, term (illustrates, clarifies, extends, complicates), Boyd’s claim (insert chosen claim),
by…(cite evidence from the author’s text).
2) Author, term (illustrates, etc) the matter/claim/idea/concept further by
stating/asserting/revealing…(cite evidence from the supplementary text).
3) Carey’s claim regarding (insert claim), is (insert appropriate term), by (author), in his/her
article/editorial/book (insert attribution phrase), as he/she states/claims/argues/queries, (insert
author’s claim).
4) If the text is ‘doing’ more than one thing to Boyd’s argument: Not only does (state the
author)’s claim regarding (insert author’s claim) + (appropriate term) Boyd’s argument of
(insert Boyd’s claim), it also (insert correlating term) this idea by (cite additional evidence
from the author’s text). OR
In addition to (insert appropriate term) Boyd’s argument concerning (insert Boyd’s claim),
(author’s name) + also (correlating term) the argument by (cite additional evidence from the
author’s text).
Example using template:
1) Author, Michael Cannon, complicates Michael Moore’s argument for a ‘right’ to
universal health care, by revealing important issues not considered by Moore, including
financial strain and provision of extensive medical care.
3) Moore’s claim regarding the failure of profit-based health insurance companies to protect
their clients, is extended by a staff writer from KMBC-TV in Kansas City, when he
provides a follow-up on Julie Pierce’s devastating testimonial, debuted in Moore’s film,
of losing her husband to cancer after he was denied life-saving treatments. KMBC-TV
claims that Moore’s documentary gave Pierce “a voice and a stage.”
4) In addition to illustrating Moore’s argument concerning the excessive price tags of poor
health-insurance plans, and the need for drastic modification of our current system,
author Scott Shore, in his article, “The Nightmare of Universal Health Care,” complicates
Moore’s argument by claiming that universal health-care is not the appropriate solution
for our health-care mess.
TEMPLATE # 2
Author A complicates Author B’s argument by ______________, _______________, and
____________________.
Author A suggests that Author B fails to ______________________.
Author A acknowledges that Author B is_________________________ yet Author B still does
not/does not address _____________________________________________.
Although Author A agrees with Author B that ____________________ he/she
5
(refutes/counters/rebuts) _________________________.
Author A’s assertion contrasts with Authors B’s claim that ___________________
Templates for Introducing all Three Authors
The following templates may be helpful when you’re introducing all three authors.

Both of these authors examine issues similar to the ones Boyd discusses.
________________ addresses the issue of ________________, and (clarifies, illustrates,
etc) Boyd’s argument by __________________________. _________________
discusses the idea of _______________________, and (clarifies, illustrates, etc) his
analysis of _______________ by showing __________________________.

Both authors address issues related to Boyd’s argument, but in different ways.
__________________ offers an alternate viewpoint of ______________ portion of
Boyd’s argument (cause of the problem, solution, etc). He/she (illustrates, complicates,
etc) his idea by ________________________. In contrast, _________________
addresses the portion of Boyd’s argument that deals with ____________________
(effects, solutions, etc). He/she (clarifies, illustrates, etc) his idea by
_____________________________.

All three authors are concerned with the issue of _______________________. Boyd
addresses ____________’s opinions in his article, saying ______________________.
_______________’s writing (clarifies, illustrates, etc) Boyd’s because
_________________________. The third author, _______________, (clarifies,
illustrates, etc) both of them because _______________________.
6
Sample Body Paragraphs Using Rifkin
Disclaimer: These paragraphs are taken from multiple sources. They are meant to show examples
of possible body paragraphs, which students should analyze to decide what works and what
doesn't. Not all paragraphs are good models.
Intro: In "A Change of Heart About Animals," a 2003 editorial published in the Los Angeles Times,
Jeremy Rifkin argues that new research calls into question many of the boundaries commonly thought to
exist between humans and other animals. As a consequence, he suggests that humans should expand their
empathy for animals and treat them better. To support this argument, Rifkin points to studies suggesting
that animals can acquire language, use tools, exhibit self-awareness, anticipate death, and pass on
knowledge from one generation to the next. Rifkin's argument provides a much-needed expansion of
human empathy "to include the broader community of creatures" (Rifkin 16). However, a logical
extension of Rifkin's argument requires that humans anthropomorphically proscribe all characteristics of
human emotions on animals in ways that are not supported by similar studies. In order to more clearly
define the limits of similar emotions in humans and animals, I will here outline the lack of guilt, morality,
and spiritual faith in animals.
Potential body paragraphs
Body Paragraph A: A researcher at Barnard College, Andrea Horowitz writes about a study that was
done on dogs to determine where "the guilty look" comes from (Horowitz 447). In her article, she says
that the guilty look is something that humans perceive, but that dogs actually emit as a response to owner
behavior rather than any prior obedience or disobedience. This disagrees with Rifkin, because he claims
that animals and humans share similar emotions.
Body Paragraph B: In a recent study at Barnard College, dogs who exhibited signs of "the guilty look"
were tested to see if the look came as a result of animal disobedience or owner behavior (Horowitz 447).
Guilt is an emotion that is often described as differentiating humans from animals. The results of this
study indicate that dogs give the guilty look based on the cues their owners give them rather than any
connection with their own disobedience (Horowitz 448). This proves that Rifkin's argument may be
limited to baser emotions like excitement, grief, and stress - emotions that are instinctual and not of a
higher order.
Body Paragraph C: Rifkin's argument examines several emotions that many might claim are instinctual;
several critics have argued that excitement, grief, and stress are often impulsive emotions rather than ones
achieved through reflection. Considering that animals do share some emotions, it is natural on this basis
alone to extend our empathy to animals that feel other instinctual emotions - like pain - and to develop
better practices accordingly. However, an examination of reflective emotions reveals limits in the
connections between humans and animals. In a recent study at Barnard College, researchers demonstrated
the false attribution of the feeling of guilt to dogs who had exhibited disobedient behavior. In an article
describing the study, Andrea Horowitz concludes that the results "highlight the priority, instead [of guilt
based on disobedience], of the human's behaviour over the evidence of wrongdoing" (Horowitz 450). In
other words, the study indicates that the appearance of guilt arises as an instinctual reaction to human cues
rather than any self-reflection on the dogs' part on the act in question. This is significant for two reasons:
first, because it indicates a common misattribution of human emotions to animals on the part of pet
owners, and secondly because it demonstrates the limits of Rifkin's argument in applying only to
instinctual emotions rather than reflective emotions.
7
MODEL: Tough, KIPP Schools, & Chapter 9
Tough’s “What It Takes to Make a Student” is useful in that it discusses many of the same issues,
people and programs that Gladwell does in chapter 9, but provides a much more complicated
account, and provides many other factors to consider.
Gladwell says that KIPP schools have succeeded “by taking the idea of cultural legacies seriously.” Yet
the Tough article suggests that this isn’t the only or even the main reason KIPP schools succeed.
 Tough quotes Levin, co-founder of KIPP schools and the superintendent of the four New York City
schools. Levin states that more important than the behavioral conditioning (SLANTT) is the “less
visible practices: clear and coherent goals for each class; teachers who work 15 to 16 hours a day;
careful lesson planning; and a decade’s worth of techniques, tricks, games and chants designed to
help vast amounts of information penetrate poorly educated brains very quickly.” (p 9)
 Tough cites a key critic of KIPP, “Richard Rothstein, a former education columnist for The New York
Times who is now a lecturer at Teachers College.” (Note the way journalist Tough introduces
Rothstein using a kind of rhetorical précis.) Rothstein is skeptical KIPP schools provide a model that
can be widely adopted, arguing
1) The “model cannot be replicated on a wide scale” [remember, it requires teachers work 15 to 16
hour days – other material I’ve read on this and Teach for America suggests that the burnout rate is
high – many teachers only last 2 or 3 years.]
2) The “elevated incoming scores at the Bronx school make it mostly irrelevant to the national debate
over the achievement gap….Although Rothstein acknowledges that KIPP’s students are chosen by
lottery, he contends in his book “Class and Schools” that they are “not typical lower-class students.”
The very fact that their parents would bother to enroll them in the lottery sets them apart from other
inner-city children, he says, adding that there is “no evidence” that KIPP’s strategy “would be as
successful for students whose parents are not motivated to choose such a school.”
Tough suggests a host of other reasons why poor and minority students fare badly in school. For
example, he states that 1) the best teachers are given no incentives to teach at the most needy schools,
and a large % of the worst teachers teach at the poorest schools, 2) government spending on schools
often makes this situation worse.
1) “Nationwide, the best and most experienced teachers are allowed to choose where they teach. And
since most state contracts offer teachers no bonus or incentive for teaching in a school with a high
population of needy children, the best teachers tend to go where they are needed the least. A study
that the Education Trust issued in June used data from Illinois to demonstrate the point. Illinois
measures the quality of its teachers and divides their scores into four quartiles, and those numbers
show glaring racial inequities. In majority-white schools, bad teachers are rare: just 11 percent of
the teachers are in the lowest quartile. But in schools with practically no white students, 88
percent of the teachers are in the worst quartile. The same disturbing pattern holds true in terms of
poverty. At schools where more than 90 percent of the students are poor — where excellent
teachers are needed the most — just 1 percent of teachers are in the highest quartile.
2) “Government spending on education does not tend to compensate for these inequities; in fact, it often
makes them worse. Goodwin Liu, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley, has
compiled persuasive evidence for what he calls the country’s “education apartheid.” In states with
more poor children, spending per pupil is lower. In Mississippi, for instance, it is $5,391 a year; in
8
Connecticut, it is $9,588. Most education financing comes from state and local governments, but the
federal supplement for poor children, Title 1, is “regressive,” Liu points out, because it is tied to the
amount each state spends. So the federal government gives Arkansas $964 to help educate each poor
child in the state, and it gives Massachusetts $2,048 for each poor child there.”
Prospectus for Paper 2 (1 -2 pages)
It’s a good idea to write a prospectus before you construct a paper from several sources as it
gives you a chance to think through your paper and play with ideas. If you go over one page,
that’s fine. If anything, it will help you better articulate your ideas for your paper.
Your prospectus should include the following parts:
 Introduction: this is where you will give some background on the central text and discuss
why it is of interest to you and others. Consider the following questions:
o What is the claim your author discusses in this central text?
o What interests you about this claim?
o What aspect of this claim will you explore?
 Research: this where you connect the two secondary sources you will be using to write
this paper. Consider the following questions:
o How do these secondary sources connect to your central text?
o What issue(s) in these secondary sources will your paper explore?
o HOW do these outside sources affect your understanding of the central text?
Think in terms of verbs, what the outside text does to your reading of the central
text, i.e. challenge, illustrate, qualify, extend or complicate. WHY do they do
that? In other words, in what ways do they make you re-visit the central text?
 Conclusion: this is where you round up your prospectus. This section should highlight
your main point – i.e., your purpose for writing this paper.
o At this moment, what do you think the main point of your paper will be? This
may be a good opportunity to write your “purpose statement.”
MLA Works Cited Page, annotated. Under each source entry, write a few sentences why you
selected the source.
9
Framework for Body paragraphs
Project #2: Using outside sources to illustrate, extend, clarify, or complicate and argument
Using the Prospectus you wrote for this project, start filling in the blanks below to help organize
your ideas. Please note that you will need to provide more than one example from each source.
This is just an exercise to help you organize your ideas as you get started.
Introduce the text
Introduce the author
Describe main argument(s) addressed in this text
Quote author’s claim from primary text that you will investigate
Introduce outside sources and STATE whether they (illustrate, extend, clarify, and/or complicate) the text
[This statement is your claim that you will be trying to prove throughout your paper]
Identify outside source #1 and EXPLAIN how outside research relates to the author’s claim (HOW does it
illustrate, extend, clarify, complicate the argument?)
10
Quote the source that was just introduced in order to provide evidence for your claim – SHOW how this source
illustrates, extends, clarifies, or complicates the text
Analyze the quote, explaining why it is meaningful - EXPLAIN WHY this source illustrates, extends, clarifies,
or complicates the text
Identify outside source #2 and EXPLAIN HOW outside research relates to the author’s claim (HOW does it
illustrate, extend, clarify, complicate the argument?)
Quote the source that was just introduced in order to provide evidence for your claim – SHOW how this source
illustrates, extends, clarifies, or complicates the text
11
Analyze the quote, explaining why it is meaningful - EXPLAIN WHY this source illustrates, extends, clarifies,
or complicates the text
Explain HOW the evidence from both sources illustrates, extends, clarifies, and/or complicates the claim and WHY
this evidence is SIGNIFICANT (why should we care)
12
Framework for Body paragraphs + Sample Body paragraphs
Organizing your writing:
Project #2: Using outside sources to illustrate, extend, clarify, or complicate and argument
I have filled in the blanks below as an example, using the paragraph I drafted regarding how documents written by
Roman Catholic leaders complicate Kidder’s argument. Please note that you will need to provide more than one
example from each source. This is just a starting point.
Introduce the text
In his bestselling novel Mountains Beyond Mountains
Introduce the author
Journalist Tracy Kidder
Describe main topic(s) addressed
in this text
discusses liberation theology as a “branch of Catholicism” (62).
Quote author’s claim from
primary text that you will
investigate
He states that “Latin America’s Catholic bishops had endorsed some of its
tenets” in the “late 1960s,” and describes its “central imperative” which is “to
provide a preferential option for the poor” (62, 81).
Introduce outside sources and
STATE whether they (illustrate,
extend, clarify, and/or
complicate) the text
However, several documents written by Roman Catholic leaders complicate
the argument presented by Kidder.
[This statement is your claim
that you will be trying to
prove throughout your paper]
Identify outside source #1 and
EXPLAIN how outside research
relates to the author’s claim (HOW
does it illustrate, extend, clarify,
complicate the argument?)
Though his book was published in 2004, Kidder failed to make note of the
fact that Prefect Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI)
presented a document specifically discussing the Roman Catholic stance on
liberation theology during the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith in August, 1984, entitled “Instruction on Certain Aspects of the ‘Theology
of Liberation.’”
13
Quote the source that was just
introduced in order to provide
evidence for your claim – SHOW
how this source illustrates,
extends, clarifies, or complicates
the text (Kidder)
In this text, Prefect Ratzinger points out that there are “essential aspects [of
Christianity] which the ’theologies of liberation’ especially tend to
misunderstand or eliminate.”
Analyze the quote, explaining
why it is meaningful - EXPLAIN
WHY this source illustrates,
extends, clarifies, or complicates
the text (Kidder)
Identify outside source #2 and
EXPLAIN HOW outside research
relates to the author’s claim (HOW
does it illustrate, extend, clarify,
complicate the argument?)
Kidder fails to mention the Marxist associations of some branches of
liberation theology, the violent political tenets of which contradict the
teachings of Catholicism.
Quote the source that was just
introduced in order to provide
evidence for your claim – SHOW
how this source illustrates,
extends, clarifies, or complicates
the text (Kidder)
The Prefect also discusses ways in which some of the “theologies of liberation”
can misrepresent the “Christian meaning” of the poor, “by confusing “the 'poor'
of the Scripture and the 'proletariat' of Marx. In this way they pervert the
Christian meaning of the poor, and they transform the fight for the rights of the
poor into a class fight within the ideological perspective of the class struggle.”
In an interview held during a flight to Brazil for The Fifth General Conference
of the Bishops of Latin America and the Caribbean in May, 2007, Pope
Benedict XVI (formerly Prefect Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger) responded to
questions about current exponents of liberation theology in Brazil, and also
explained the intent behind his 1984 text regarding liberation theology.
. . . there is room for a difficult but legitimate debate on how to achieve
[necessary reforms, in the fight for fairer living conditions] and on how
best to make the Church's social doctrine effective. In this regard, certain
liberation theologians are also attempting to advance, keeping to this path;
others are taking other positions.
In any case, the intervention of the Magisterium was not to destroy the
commitment to justice but rather to guide it on the right paths, and also
with respect for the proper difference between political responsibility and
ecclesiastical responsibility.
Analyze the quote, explaining
why it is meaningful - EXPLAIN
WHY this source illustrates,
extends, clarifies, or complicates
the text (Kidder)
Explain HOW the evidence from
both sources illustrates, extends,
clarifies, and/or complicates the
claim and WHY this evidence is
SIGNIFICANT (why should we
care)
This interview, which takes place more than 20 years after “Instruction on
Certain Aspects of the ‘Theology of Liberation’” was published, extends the
argument set forth in this document. Pope Benedict XVI points out that some
practitioners of liberation theology follow the “path” advocated by the
Catholic Church, while others do not, and that the Church wishes to guide
Christians who advocate for the poor to do so without violence and without
pushing a specific political agenda.
Though Kidder alluded to the fact that only “some” of the tenets of liberation
theology have been endorsed by the Catholic Church, his failure to mention
the reasons why other tenets of liberation theology were not endorsed by the
Church reveal a shortcoming in his presentation of liberation theology as a
“branch of Catholicism.”
14
Peer Review
Your Name____________________________________________
Name of person you are reviewing__________________________
Date: _________________________________________________
PART 1: CHARTING YOUR PEER’S TEXT
Chart your peer’s text – that is, in each paragraph or sentence, write in the margin the “move” that you
think your peer is making. When you are done, compare notes with your peer. List and discuss any areas
of disagreement.
PART 2: PEER REVIEW
1. Does the opening paragraph introduce the topic, Boyd, Boyd’s background, his main argument
and the stated/apparent purpose of the movie (the project – what he sets out to accomplish, plus the kind of
evidence he draws on)? Comments/suggested improvements?
2. Does the paper describe the students’ project (example: “My project will review and evaluate three
scholarly sources that help illustrate, clarify, and extend X’s argument. I will then conclude with….”) List
comments/suggested improvements
3. Does the paper correctly capture one or more of Boyd’s claims, and does it present a “nuanced’ account
of his position – i.e. capture the complexities of his argument? Comments/suggested improvements
4. When describing Boyd’s claims does the paper use quote(s) that are correctly a) introduced, b)
integrated, c) explained, d) correctly cited.? List comments/suggested improvements
5. When introducing the first author to be connected to Boyd’s work does the paper present a brief
rhetorical précis, and outline the author’s project? List comments/suggested improvements
6. Does the paper successfully discuss how this author’s work relates to Boyd’s, and does the paper use
quote(s) that are correctly a) introduced, b) integrated, c) explained, d) correctly cited.? List
comments/suggested improvements
15
7. Does the paper just compare evidence, or repeat what the author says about Boyd, or does it make
genuine connections between the texts? How?
List comments/suggested improvements
8. Does the paper demonstrate explicitly, and in detail, how Boyd’s text is complicated, extended,
clarified, or illustrated? How does the paper do this?
List comments/suggested improvements
9. With the second author, does the paper carry out the steps listed in #5 - # 8 above?
List comments/suggested improvements
10. Does the paper conclude with a section that discusses the issue of significance? List
comments/suggested improvements
ORGANIZATION
Your Rating: How would you rate the organization of this paper?

7. Excellent
Sophisticated arrangement of content with evident and/or subtle transitions.
Effective arrangement of content that sustains a logical order with evidence of

6. Very good
transitions.
Functional arrangement of content that sustains a logical order with some

5. Good
evidence of transitions.

4. Average
Consistent arrangement of content with or without attempts at transitions.
Confused or inconsistent arrangement of content with or without attempts at

3. Poor
transitions.

2. Very poor
Minimal control of content arrangement without attempts at transitions.

1. Disastrous
No apparent content arrangement and no attempt at transitions.
GENERAL COMMENTS: please note any strengths and/or suggested improvements. Include
discussion of mechanics (comma splices, fragments, etc.)
16
TIPS FOR DOING WELL ON ASSIGNMENT 2
a) You can make this where you assert your position, using the outside source as support,
or you can make the outside source more of the focus. Example 1: Outside source CAN
BE READ AS complicating, or I WILL USE THE SOURCE TO CHALLENGE, complicate, etc.
b) You NEED TO DO INTERPRETIVE WORK – don’t just line two texts up, and talk about
vague similarities. It may be that the outside text does not directly reference Boyd, and
the author likely has not read Boyd. So you have to show how the outside text is
relevant, and how the author would respond to Boyd if s/he were addressing "Why Do
You Think They Are Called For Profit Colleges?" You may need to spell out the
implications of claims made in the outside text, and connect these to Boyd.
c) You must make a good, solid connection, and present a case for it – pretend you are a
lawyer, faced by a skeptical jury and judge. They won’t take your word for it – you need
to persuade them to see things as you do, and you need to present strong evidence.
d) You must choose very carefully when selecting quotations. Present the reader with
quotations that fully support your case, are directly relevant to your point, and discuss
them at length. They will be crucial for the next step, namely,
e) You must spend a lot of time detailing exactly HOW the outside text can be seen as
complicating, extending, qualifying, etc. See the verbs in the handout. UNPACK what it
means to complicate or challenge.
17
WRITING TIPS FOR BOYD PAPER/UNIT 2
Analysis: The paper should focus on explaining HOW the outside source extends, illustrates,
complicates, qualifies or challenges Boyd. See page 77-78 of the reader. This is the most important
part of the paper.
Provide a detailed account of both Boyds’ claim and the claim in the outside source. If you
provide only a brief, general account of claims, your analysis of connections (which is the heart of
the paper) will be weak.
The introduction should contain a) introduction to topic, and/or attention-getter, b) brief
background on Boyd, c) summary of overall argument and support, d) statement of purpose (‘In
this paper I will…”)
Each body section should
a) Introduce a key claim(s) from Boyd that you will focus on, b) Explain the claim, provide a
quotation or two to illustrate the claim, c) describe the support Boyd provides for this claim, d)
transition to the outside source.
Organize your account of Boyd’s claim so that it helps “set up” your analysis of the outside
text. Focus on the parts of Boyds claim, and the evidence he uses, which best allow you to establish
connections to the outside source.
Read and re-read the outside source, and make sure you capture the claims as accurately as
possible. Student papers sometimes provide a rather superficial account of the outside source.
Some papers just note very loose, vague similarities. If you look at the list of outside sources
handout, you’ll see short summaries of some of the texts, with some key phrases in bold, to alert
you to important points. You may want to create a list of similarities and differences that focus
on claims and evidence.
ABC = ALWAYS BE using the language of CLAIMS. Focus relentlessly on claims, evidence and
purpose– and on making a strong case that your interpretation of the claims is correct.
Attributions (always focus on primary author.) If you discuss others referred to in a text, frame
this in terms of how the primary author draws on these people. The same applies to each outside
source – talk about how the main author draws on the work of other authors. Try to talk about
what authors DO with the other writers/authors they use. That is, answer why they refer to the
other author? Eg., “Bloom supports his claim by citing research done by Smith…Bloom illustrates
his point by drawing on case studies originally conducted by Jones…Bloom concedes that writers
like D’Souza are uneasy with the implications of an evolutionary view of morality…”
No “parallel parking” Don’t provide a series of general points loosely based on the text, or provide
points that feature your own thoughts on the issues (except in the conclusion, where this may be
appropriate.) Instead, focus relentlessly on the claims in the text, and your analysis of the
relationship between claims and outside sources.
No hanging/hit and run quotations. ALWAYS introduce a quotation with your own words. NEVER
insert a quote that stands alone. Always introduce, integrate and explain quotes.
18
Quotations - the period goes inside the quotation, not outside it – even if there is no period in
the original quote (see handbook for a full explanation).
Example: Oreskes states that she “would like to fight Michael Crichton in a cage match.”
NOT Oreskes states that she “would like to fight Michael Crichton in a cage match”.
Long, complex sentences with complex syntax (embedded clauses, multiple verbs, etc) can
sometimes be hard to understand. Check that these are clear. If they are not, try breaking the long
sentence into several shorter, simpler sentences, tied together with simple connectives. See
handouts on unity, cohesion, focus and coordination.
Avoid “cheerleading” (“Boyd’s brilliance is revealed in his masterful argument that leaves
opponents no place to hide from the glare of his logic.”)
Article titles go in quotation marks (“The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change.”) Book titles,
movie titles, and magazine titles are italicized (Moby Dick, Food Inc., Newsweek magazine, etc.)
Avoid comma splices, fragments, and agreement problems – see handouts and handbook
19
Draft Argument Map
OVERALL ARGUMENT
While problems exist, and some new regulation is warranted, for profits have an important place in
higher education as they are innovative, help students ignored by traditional institutions, and are
here to stay.
Claim
Problems and abuses exist in the FP sector, and many operators refuse to admit this.
[6], [8, 9, 10]. Evidence: [8, 9, 10]
For-profits won’t take responsibility for the debt to income ratio; (Evidence)
Clifford’s lack of acknowledgment; half of Corinthian Colleges’ students are in
default (¶8-9).
For-profits make most of their money from the federal government; (Evidence)
University of Phoenix alone is making one billion from Pell Grants and four billion
from subsidized loans (¶4).
Large numbers of graduates of for-profits are having trouble paying back loans;
Aggressive recruiters; Huge loans/debt; Worthless degrees; stories from the news;
Obama administration proposal; congressional hearings.
Default doesn’t matter to for-profits; (Evidence) they make most of their money
from federal loans (¶9).
CLAIM
Increased oversight and regulation is warranted in order to stop abuses
[6, 11]. Evidence [9, 10]
“The federal government has every right to regulate the billions of taxpayer dollars
it is pouring into the pockets of for-profit shareholders” (¶11).
“Without oversight, the combination of government subsidies and financially
unsophisticated consumers guarantees outright fraud or programs that, while
technically legitimate, are so substandard that the distinction of legitimacy has no
meaning” (¶6).
For-profits are mostly publically subsidized; (Evidence) 90/10 rule, it used to be
85/15 (¶10).
Abuses in the industry. Clifford’s abstract concession (¶8).
20
CLAIM The sector isn’t inherently bad, and the reputable parts are valuable as they drive
technological and organizational innovation. (“But that doesn’t mean for-profit education is
inherently bad” (¶11).
CLAIM
FPs exist to address to fix educational market failures created by traditional institutions. [11]
Evidence [11-13]
They serve students traditional institutions ignore (¶11). Evidence, Kaplan provides
courses for community colleges (¶12). American Public University teaches Wal-Mart
employees (¶13).
CLAIM
Criticisms of the FPs by non-profit colleges are flawed and hypocritical. They are wrong to think FPs
are going away. [14-16] Evidence [15]
We cannot determine whether or not the quality of education is less at for-profits
than public colleges; (Evidence) default rates don’t directly determine lack of quality
[more of a claim than evidence];
There are no objective measures of educational quality; accreditation for public
colleges is determined by the colleges themselves [?] (¶14). Accreditation is
meaningless; (Evidence) for-profits can buy it (¶15).
21
Sample Carey Paper 1
For-Profit Colleges
For-profit colleges and universities are educational institutions managed and operated by private,
profit-seeking businesses and corporations. Many for-profit institutions are subsidiaries of larger
parent companies such as the Apollo Group, Career Education Corporation, Corinthian Colleges,
Inc., DeVry, Inc., and Laureate Education. To some extent for-profit colleges have always
existed, formerly recognized as trade schools and career colleges that offered certificates and
associate’s degrees to people that could not get access to America’s traditional colleges. As more
and more community colleges meet and exceed their enrollment capacities, for-profit colleges
and universities are materializing into an attractive option for students. For-profits are taking
advantage of this by aggressively attracting a large and growing population of students entering
the education market – particularly working adults, part-time students, and students with
children. During the past two decades, enrollment at for-profit institutions increased 225 percent.
In 2012 about 12 percent of all postsecondary students, about 2.4 million as of the 2010-2011
academic year, attended for-profit schools.1 Entrepreneurs like Michael Clifford have aided in
the rapid growth of these monsters by seizing dying nonprofit colleges and flipping them into
money-making machines, as nicknamed by Kevin Carey in an article for The Chronicle.2 He
continues to explain that most of the money made by for-profits comes from the federal
government in the form of grants and loans. The unproportional truth illustrates that a quarter of
the Department of Education student aid program funds goes to for-profits, while they enroll
only ten percent of students” and implies that something isn’t quite right. Looking further into
for-profits, investigation shows that this significant amount of financial aid isn’t going towards a
good cause at all. Shady recruitment tactics, large student debt, military personnel exploitation,
and false or misleading information are just a few of the multiple concerns reaching the public’s
surface. It is vital to learn the reality behind for-profit universities in order help prevent others, as
well as to personally, not fall into the same trap that millions of students unfortunately already
have. In this paper I will describe existing key positions that debate the fate of for-profit colleges
and I will personally support and extend reasons why current for-profit colleges are a dangerous
post-secondary educational option that need to be heavily regulated and reformed for the better.
For-profit universities differentiate themselves from traditional higher education choices
by boasting about the great opportunities they have such as providing flexible scheduling with
year-round enrollment, online options, small class sizes and convenient locations. In this ongoing
educational debate, they maintain loyal to their own position (more so as a defensive response)
that for-profit universities should be treated equally by the government when in comparison to
non-profit institutions. In an online article, Darling refutes all allegations and unfavorable
statements by calling the U.S. Department of Education and all other opponents “elitists.” He
claims that such strong opposition to for-profit colleges is only a security blanket placed by the
non-profit sector because they feel threatened and need an excuse to somehow regain control of
higher education’s competitive edge. The proposed “Gainful Employment” rule, as stated by forprofit supporters, “unfairly holds for-profit institutions to a higher standard for student debt and
1
“For-Profit Colleges and Universities.” National Conference of State Legislatures. NCSL.org. August 2012. Web. 2
April 2013.
2
Carey, Kevin. “Why Do You Think They’re Called For-Profit Colleges? Commentary.” The Chronicle. Provided in
course reader.
22
default than all other institutions of higher education.”3 They argue that this rule will deny
thousands of students access to the training and skills development they need to secure a job in
today’s troubled economy and dispute that if the rule does pass, all colleges and universities
should be held accountable by the same financial standards.
Contradictory to the above mentioned, a second position held by Osamudia R. James
states that gainful employment rules do not go far enough to ward the evils of for-profits
colleges. She contends, “Public money currently allocated to these institutions would be better
spent improving American public education and expanding access to non-profit post-secondary
institutions instead.”4 To back up her theory, James compares the public and individual benefits
of a student in a for-profit to those of a student in a non-profit and clearly illustrates that the
latter’s benefits prevail. Similarly to results by the National Bureau of Economic Research’s
study, James lists for-profits’ disappointing civic and economic measures: higher debt burden,
less likely to graduate, high percentage of student loan defaults, reap weaker monetary returns on
their education, and less likely to be a participative citizen in politics. James argues that
providing the public funds to historically successful, non-profit traditional institutions will bring
the desired individual and public benefits such as democratic involvement, income and career
advancement, and higher tax revenue.
A third and less dramatic position backs the proposed “Gainful Employment” rule in an
effort to regulate for-profit institutions and ease concerns that for-profit institutions show a
greater interest in profiting from student loan money than educating students. HELP Committee
Chairman Tom Harkin’s 2-year for-profit college investigation found “more than 1 in 5 students
enrolling in a for-profit college (about 22%) default within 3 years of entering repayment on
their student loans. [More specifically,] in the 2008-2009 academic school year students who
attended a for-profit college accounted for 47 percent of all Federal student loan defaults.”5 By
means of a “Gainful Employment” rule, the U.S. Department of Education will cut off federal
financial aid for any for-profit program if its graduates have a lot of student loan debt and low
repayment rates. For-profit critic, Harkin, writes in his final investigative report about the
backward correlation between a for-profit college’s financial success and that of a student’s
educational success. In order to properly align these two measures, he fully supports the
recommended regulatory rules and believes the government has a crucial role to play. The forprofit sector needs to be less of a money-making machine for Wall Street and more of an
educational institution for students and taxpayers.
For- profit colleges and universities are deceitful institutions that will do whatever is
necessary to make a buck. They are crossing the line with pushy recruitment tactics, false rates
and statistics, empty promises, and drowning students in substantial student debt. For- profit
colleges once began as harmless trade schools and career colleges and positively filled a void
that traditional schools could not. They appealed to those that wanted to get a higher education
but were stuck with life’s obstacles in the way. I believe that offering a second schooling option
with flexible schedules, online options, small class sizes and convenient locations truly does help
people achieve their dream of obtaining a degree and should continue to be an acceptable option
in the future. However, the current unacceptable structure of for-profit colleges need to be
strictly reformed and regulated to guarantee they are not taking advantage of students and
3
Darling, Brian. “For-Profit Education Under Assault.” RedState.com. September 2010. Web. Provided in course
reader.
4
James, Osamudia. “The Rules Don’t Go Far Enough.” Provided in course reader.
5
Harkin, Tom. “For-Profit College Investigation.” Harkin.senate.gov.. 2010. Web. 2 April 2013.
23
abusing the education system. For-Profit colleges need to be upfront and honest about what they
can offer, will offer, and did offer as well as provide true statistical data so that society can begin
to trust them.
There have been growing concerns about the tactics for-profit colleges use to attract
students. Recent evidence has uncovered aggressive recruiting strategies designed to pressure
students into enrolling, with one investigation indicating that for-profit recruiters are taught a
series of questions called the “pain funnel” to entice students into signing. 6 Another document
illustrates the training guide or rubric an admissions representative of The Art Institue of
Pittsburgh would use to keep the lead’s attention and lists in detail different responses to use for
different rejection statements. It too follows a similar pattern of the “pain funnel” by giving
instructions to “build em up, break em down, find the pain, and build em back up!”7 Paul Glader
spoke with a former academic advisor of Ashford University about his experience working for a
for-profit school. He states, “I was consistently saddened and overwhelmed by the amount of
lies that students were told and how the ignorant, poor, or academically incompetent seemed to
be preyed upon by admissions coordinators.”8 Face it, admissions counselors and enrollment
advisers are just fancy titles for sales representatives and recruiters. Multiple comments on this
article were made by former employees explaining the lengthy strategies used to get leads to
enroll. Nothing was a good enough excuse for why a student didn’t want to, or could not, go to
school. A personal friend of mine wishing to be left anonymous, also a former admissions
counselor of Ashford University (as of last year), took the time to describe his daily routine and
the secrets behind the job. His daily routine matched quite well with the badgering cold call
conversations described above and explained that they were told to do whatever was necessary to
keep them on the phone, complete an application within one hour, and meet monthly quotas. He
states, “I didn’t enroll a lot of students. I hated it because I didn’t have the heart to lie to them.”9
Adding to sketchy secrecy, after being sent his personal desk items for a department wide layoff, he recognized that all notebooks containing Ashford University training tips and personal
notes were not returned. The former employee also admitted that Bridgepoint buys personal
information from partner companies such as HeadStart that serve as interested and prospective
“leads.” Such recruitment procedures are just a few of the many deceptive ways the for-profit
colleges and universities are trapping students into believing. First and foremost, for-profit
institutions’ recruitment efforts need to be reformed to better resemble the truth about what they
can offer to a prospective student.
Another main focus of for-profit colleges is their confessions of falsifying statistics to
illustrate more attractive past success. According to Harkin’s investigative report previously
mentioned, "[M]any companies used tactics that misled prospective students with regard to the
cost of the program, the availability and obligations of financial aid, the time to complete the
program, the completion rates of other students, the job placement rate of other students, the
transferability of the credit, or the reputation and accreditation of the school." A testimony of
Kathleen Bithel stated, “A coworker showed me how to manipulate information received from a
student, to ensure that the student could be listed as “gainfully employed” for the purposes of the
6
“Pain Funnel and Pain Puzzle.” Documents Referred to in Harkin Floor Statement Recruiting Tactics. P. 7. Provided
by course reader.
7
Huffington Recruitment Script. P. 1-4. Provided by course reader.
8
Gladder, Paul. “Inside Ashford University.” Wiredacademic.com. August 2011. Web. 3 April 2013.
9
Anonymous. Phone Interview. 4 April 2013.
24
company’s statistics.”10 She also explains how, in some instances, employees were able to
essentially eliminate graduates that would make be negative additions to overall calculations if
they fit qualifications of a “waiver ” or add extra graduates to the “gainfully employed” equation
if they used their major’s skills at least 25% of the time at their current job. In reality, the goodlooking statistics were showing that gas station attendants were successfully using their
residential planning degree. Now how does that add up? Reforming these for-profit universities
will require a no-tolerance policy of fudged numbers with narrower qualifications of what can
and cannot be counted in the statistics in order to prove its relevance and validity. Only then can
people begin to trust what for-profit universities are claiming.
For- profit colleges and universities should be reformed and regulated to ensure that they
are no longer the corrupt companies with hidden agendas that they currently are. The skewed
university statistics, transferable credit deception, fabricated post-graduate job placement rates,
and extreme recruitment tactics created bad publicity and left prospective students questioning
for-profit colleges’ worth. I believe that, along with the “Gainful Employment” rule to help
transform the financial issues of student debt, transforming recruitment and statistical evidence
are the next steps in changing for-profit schools into a more reliable, successful higher education
option.
Sample Carey Paper 2
For-profit Institutions Need Stronger Regulation
The 2008 Recession had tremendous impact on the governmental budget at all levels.
One area that felt the strongest impact on budgetary constraints is education. John Douglas
describes how budgetary constraints affected education in the State of California. He claims. “In
the mega-state of California, for example, it has led to estimates that in the 2010-11 academic
year approximately 250,000 eligible students were denied access to the state’s public higher
education system” ( Douglas 11). This is due to severe budget cuts. As a result many young
adults have been left out without an opportunity to obtain higher education. The other option for
these students is for-profit education. However, some for-profit institutions have taken advantage
of prospective students. They use misleading and unethical tactics to recruit their customers due
to insufficient regulation. It is important to address this issue because the for-profit colleges are
growing, and the state and federal funding for the traditional education is decreasing. Therefore,
the for-profit institutions are not going anywhere. The under-regulation of these programs has
impact on the taxpayer and the students of the traditional institutions. The institution educates
less than 12 of the students, but uses 25 percent of federal student loans (Senate 2). The problem
with the for-profit institutions using federal loans stem from high default rates. Less than half of
all students tend to finish programs at for-profit colleges (Senate 4). In addition, for-profit
education institutions do not have high job placement rates (Senate 5). Job placement rate refers
to institution’s ability to place a graduate to a position in a particular field of study that generates
adequate income. Therefore, low percentage of graduates combined with low amount of
adequate job placement results in high default rates because the graduate cannot generate
sufficient income to pay for the loans. This can be attributed to the lack of regulation of
10
Bithel, Kathleen. Testimony. Provided by course reader.
25
recruitment practices. In this paper, I will examine two positions on the for-profit education. One
position attempts to defend the institutions and other position attacks the unethical practices by
the for-profit institutions. In addition, I will describe my undercover investigation of these
recruitment practices and provide the analysis of the investigation’s results.
In, “For-Profit Education under Assault,” Brian Darling takes a position that
attempts to defended the for-profit institution. His defense methods resemble an old cliché, “The
best defense is the offense.” Darling attacks the federal government and the non-profit
educational instructions. He calls them “elitists who hate the idea of free market educational
institutions” (Darling 25). In other words, Darling claims that a small and powerful group of
people wants to exercise exclusive control over educational fields and they do not want to
relinquish control because they are scared of the competition. Since the traditional institutions
are intimidated by the competition they “use the power of the federal government to provide
non- profit schools a competitive edge to slow the growth of for-profit institutions” (Darling 25).
Darling claims that regulation already in place such as the 90-10 rule and many proposed
regulations such as reducing the number of financial aid available to for-profit students or
forcing the for-profit colleges to address the gainful employment are designed by federal
government and traditional institutions to impede for-profit colleges from freely conducting
business in order to give traditional universities a competitive edge. He claims that federal
government does not apply the above regulations to the traditional institutions. Darling argues
that such policies “ unfairly hold for-profit institutions to a higher standard for student debt and
default than all other institutions” (Darling 26). Traditional universities and colleges have
similar or greater dropout rates. In addition many students find themselves unable to find desired
employment with their degrees after graduation. In Darling’s opinion, there is no reason for the
government to place regulations on for-profit colleges and not on the traditional institutions
because both have similar problems. Darling claims that for-profits add great value to education.
While the student with the degree in Latin studies would have a problem finding a financially
adequate career, the for-profit schools “have proven to be uniquely qualified to help students find
jobs in today’s complex economy” ( Darling 26). They are successful in helping finding jobs
for their students because most for-profit programs are vocational degrees. Since vocational
degrees are specifically tailored to a particular job, persons with these degrees are better able to
find jobs because they have specific skills needed for that career. Next position takes an opposite
approach towards the for-profit education.
The second position questions the methods and practices used by the for-profit
institutions. In “Opportunity, Ease, Encouragement, and Shame: a Short Course in Pitching
ForProfit Education”, Joshua Woods takes a position that attacks the for-profit institutions. He
claims that the for-profit education institutions resort to unethical and sometimes illegal methods
to recruit their students. The government recognized that these institutions resort to such
practices because various for profit “education companies have faced lawsuits and federal
investigations” (Woods 31). This shows the need for the additional regulation for the for-profit
institutions. Woods addresses several problematic tactics used by the for-profit institutions. The
initial problem with recruitment is the “aggressive sales tactics” which stems from “the pressures
put on them to enroll students” (Woods 31). This is problematic because the for-profit institution
admission specialists might pressure students who are unable to perform in these institutions or
are unsure if the program is the right fit for them. In the past, for profit education institutions
have “systematically misled students about their chances of finding employment after
graduation” (Woods 31). Woods argues that this is a major problem in the for profit institutions.
26
According to his claim, if a person commits to pay significant amount of money for education,
he or she needs to know the realistic chances for getting an adequate job. The 2010 report by
Government Accountability Office (GAO) on for-profits supports Wood’s position and claims.
The report disclosed that some pro-fit institutions provided misleading information to undercover
agents such as the student’s ability to find employment with the FBI with only an associate
degree and significantly misrepresented the salary size for the barber positions and medical
assistants (GAO 28). In addition, for-profit institutions engage in shaming tactics. They would
use shame tactics by asking if the person is happy with their current situation (Woods 32). Then
these institutions would offer a key to solve all of their problems by obtaining a degree from
their university. According to Wood’s position, such recruitment tactics are highly unethical and
should be regulated. The federal government should use sanctions to discourage the for-profit
institutions from resorting to these tactics. Lack of regulations will result in increase of these
practices and the student along with the taxpayer would pay the ultimate cost for the for-profit
unethical behavior. Since the non-profit institutions do not resort to the practices of aggressive
recruitment, misrepresentation of employment prospective, and shaming, government should
regulate for profit school more than the traditional universities.
In order to evaluate the use of deceptive tactics by for-profit colleges, I pretended to be a
twenty one year old male, who was looking to get a degree in criminal justice. To begin, I used
Google search to find criminal justice degrees. The search provided me with two top choices for
educational institutions in a form of advertisement. The choices were Kaplan College and
Ashford University. Ashford University did not accept any person under age of 22 to apply to
the Bachelor programs, unless the person has an Associate degree from an accredited university.
Since Ashford was not available to speak with me, I requested information from Kaplan College.
Within several minutes, Kaplan College representative, Rodrigo, called me on my
cellphone. After explaining to me how furthering the education would help me to advance in
life, I asked him several questions. First, I expressed huge concerns about the affordability and
cost of the program. Rodrigo answered, “The program [Associate Degree in Criminal Justice]
costs about 30,000 dollars, but this is the worst case scenario. Most students do not pay the full
cost out of the pocket. They get financial aid.” My second question was “ What is your job
placement percentage?” To this question Rodrigo provided the following answer, “I don’t have
them [job placement rates] with me, but our associate Jim would able to tell you at your
orientation. He [Jim] is really good at placing people. He used to do hiring for the county. He has
connection. He is able to place a lot of students. For example some of our students started with
the private security to get field experience”. My following question was, “Would security
experience help me to get a job?” Rodrigo assured me that such experience would help to obtain
a law enforcement position because the experience shows that the student is interested in the
field and the students has some hands on experience. He explained that private security
experience would set students apart from applicants with just a college degree. Finally, I
expressed doubts about succeeding in the program because I was kicked out of community
college for failing all my classes. Rodrigo informed that there is an aptitude test that any
perspective student must pass before Kaplan would accept the student into the program.
In addition, I evaluated a website that is supposed to match persons with the most fitting
institution to obtain a degree. After entering my information on onlinedegreepath.com, a
representative contacted me. The representative assured me that he would match me with the
best possible degree based on my interests, age, location, and other information. He ended up
matching me with ITT Technical Institute. After several minutes, ITT contacted me. To my
27
surprise, an ITT representative informed me that ITT campuses in San Diego area does not offer
degrees in criminal justice but they do offer degrees in cyber security. Then within an hour,
another onlinedegreepath.com representative contacted me. He explained that they were able to
match with the “best” possible educational institution for my interest. The representative
explained that he has an admission specialist from Argosy University waiting on the other line to
help me “further my dream”. The admission specialist asked me about the reason for my interest
in criminal justice. My answer was, “I watch a lot of CSI and I want to be just like them.” She
asked me about my highest level of education. I informed her that I was dismissed from the
community college for failing all my classes. The specialist asked me, “What do you think was
the reason for the lack of success?” My answer was lack of interaction with the teacher and the
classes were too difficult. Then the specialist inquired if I would be interested in taking online
courses. She informed that the cost to obtain Associate of Science in criminal justice is about
6,000 dollars for tuition and around 125 dollars for the books per semester. She informed that I
would be taking one to two classes a semester. To my question about the placement rate, she
answered that the university does not assist with job placement. Similar to Kaplan, I asked the
representative about my ability to succeed in their program given my inability to perform in the
community college. The specialist assured me that they can help me to succeed by providing free
tutoring and any other assistance. The specialist informed me that there is no admission test and
a high school diploma will admit any student into the program.
My research determined that for-profit colleges still resort to misleading practices. The
type of practice depends on the institution. However, some deceptive practices that Woods
encountered in his investigation were not used by for-profit colleges in this field research. None
of the colleges used shaming tactics. ITT Technical Institute, Kaplan College, and Argosy
University did not attempt to instill lack of self-worth or unhappiness with the current situation.
The pretend situation was set up in order to give opportunity for these institutions to use shaming
tactics, but these refrained from using them. It is not clear from this research that all institutions
have decreased or eliminated shaming tactics but these specific admission specialists were
reluctant to use them. However, the shaming tactics might not have been necessary in my
particular case because the specialist felt that I was already interested in the program. In addition,
Kaplan College has programs in place designed to eliminate unqualified applicants. One must
take the aptitude test in order to be accepted into the Criminal Justice program. It is not clear
how rigors and effective the aptitude test to restrict the unqualified applicants from entering into
the program. However, Kaplan College and Argosy University did resort to unethical recruitment
practices. The first problem with the recruitment techniques was Kaplan admission specialist’s
misrepresentation of the true cost of obtaining the Associate degree in Criminal Justice. Rodrigo
commented that most students do not pay “out of pocket” for the degree because they get
financial aid. In this situation, Rodrigo attempted to frame the financial aid as “ free money”
given by the government and not as a loan. Kaplan College might mislead a person who is not
familiar with the financial aid system to think that education at Kaplan College would come
without significant financial burden. In contrast, San Diego State University requires each
student to take loan counseling before the institution would certify the loan and disperse the
funds. Second problem with the Kaplan requirement methods was with the misdirection of
students. Rodrigo attempted to suggest that gaining employment with the private security
company would help me to get a position in law enforcement. There are several problems with
this framework. First, Kaplan wanted me to accept that obtaining a private security guard
position is an acceptable or even desired job placement method after graduation. This is also
28
problematic because this placement would go into official statistics. In addition, the student
would be stuck with significant debt while working an almost minimum wage job. In my
experience, private security companies prefer not to hire persons with criminal justice degree
who aspire to become law enforcement officers because they do not want their officer to act like
the police. Security officers who see themselves as law enforcers are a liability to these
companies. Also in my experience, many police officers have little respect for the security
officers. Lack of respect hinders applicant’s chances to get hired. Unlike Kaplan, Argosy
University does not have programs in place to ensure all students entering the program are
qualified. After I informed the admission specialist that I failed the community college because
all classes were too difficult, the specialist did not have any doubt that I could succeed in the
program. One can interpret the specialist’s confidence in two ways. Frist, the program is
extremely easy that even a failed out from community college student can complete it. Second,
the specialist was not concerned with the student’s ability to succeed but only with securing
admission for the program. The latter is more likely than the former. There have been incidents
were the admission specialists attempted to recruiting homeless persons and “Marines with
serious brain injuries” (Perteus 24). It shows that some admission specialists only care to secure
an admission deal by getting unqualified applicants to an orientation process.
It is important to address the final misleading tactic used by the for profit colleges. These
institutions create or partner up with websites that would recommend the for-profit educational
institutions to persons seeking information about degrees. The problem with these websites
stems from misleading claims made by the representatives. These website representatives claim
to match a person with the best possible option for a degree based on information provided.
However, these websites only match persons with the profit colleges. In my investigation,
Alexander Jones (my undercover name) asked the website representative to match him up with
the best possible choice regarding cost, quality, location and etc. The representative assured
Alexander that the he would get the best possible match. The representative ended up finding a
highly non-matching program for Alexander. The representative matched Alexander with ITT
Technical Institute. ITT was not best in regard to location. Alexander gave an address that was
walking distance to the Sand Diego State University, while ITT was almost six miles away. The
San Diego State University Criminal Justice program is rated top seventy in the United States,
while ITT Tech is not even regionally rated. In terms of cost, San Diego State University is
much more affordable. According to the ITT Tech program information cost release, the online
Bachelor degree in Criminal Justice costs $83,806 , while the San Diego State charges less than
30,000 (http://programinfo.itt-tech.edu/cost.pdf) . Finally, ITT offered a program that was not in
Alexander’s field of interested. Alexander requested information about law enforcement
position. ITT tech admission specialist informed Alexander that ITT San Diego campuses only
offer degree in cyber security when it comes to Criminal Justice degrees. This shows that the
websites such as onlinedegreepath.com do not attempt to match a person with best possible
degree. Their goal is to serve as a referral machine for for-profit institutions while misleading
any person inquiring about degree that they provide the best possible match for a person.
The unethical practices such as web-site referrals, misrepresentation about the financial
burden, and recruiting unqualified students must be dealt with. These education institutions are
businesses and students are customers. For-profit institutions provide a product to a public. One
should regard students as consumers. Therefore, one should regard the federal regulations on the
for-profit institutions as consumer protection. Bennett, Lucchesi, and Vedderargues argue,
“Government has a long record of enacting regulations on private enterprise, often intended to
29
protect consumers” (42). Government has numerous regulations for misleading practices by
corporations such as a civil liability for false advertisement, product liability, misrepresentation
of investment opportunity, and etc. There is no reason for the federal government not to enact
consumer protection laws for the profit-colleges. Such regulations are not attack from elitists,
who want to ensure a completive edge for traditional institutions (Darling 25), but a response to
growing concerns about unethical requirement practices. The for-profit institutions do not suffer
any cost from the loan default, but the consumer and taxpayer do. The high default rate also
affects the federal budget which in turn reduces spending on the traditional institutions.
Therefore, institutions can accept fewer students and more students are forced to look for an
alternative education. It becomes a vicious cycle in which the for-profit institution is the sole
benefiter. The government should enact tougher regulations such as forcing the admission
specialist to disclose information predetermined by the department of education. The federal
government should also restrict the number of federal loans students can obtain in order to attend
the for-profit institutions.
Sample Carey Paper 3
Education for Success
Education used to be an informal transference of knowledge from parent to
offspring in order to survive. Throughout the course of time the education model has
changed significantly. The utilization of education is arguably the most important factor in
arriving at modern day technologies. The formal education model that is seen today has a
logical structure and follows countless guidelines. This model has proven to be effective at
ensuring that every student has the opportunity for success. However, there have been
recent developments in the educational system that many claim to threaten this
opportunity for success. The rapid growth of for-profit colleges over the past decade has
introduced numerous concerns from a wide variety of people. Some of the major concerns
of this business-like education model include the amount of public money going their way,
inappropriate recruitment tactics and the high default rates that are associated with them.
In this paper I will examine the different perspectives of for-profit colleges and, in
addressing the above stated concerns, will prove that for-profit colleges have a place in our
current educational system and are here to stay.
The popularity of higher education in the private sector that is seen today is
unlike any that we have encountered before. Osamudia James, an associate professor of law
at the University of Miami who teaches and writes about education law, is concerned with
this increase. She believes that “it’s time to stop using public dollars to prop up the forprofit education sector” (James, 1) and goes on to say that the money should be allocated to
public institutions instead. Professor James believes a major reason why the for-profits
have become so popular are because of the recruitment tactics involved. She even points
out that prospective students are “sometimes persuaded to matriculate by recruiters who
shame, coerce and lie in an effort to meet enrollment targets” (James, 1). This shameful
aspect of a small number of for-profit institutions is not only a matter that needs to be
scrutinized, but should also face legal action.
30
Intuitively, any increase in the number of students attending for-profit colleges will
also increase the amount of government funding going to these colleges and universities.
Policy director of Education Sector of an independent think tank in Washington, Kevin
Carey, states that the money comes “in the form of Pell Grants and subsidized student
loans” (Carey, 1). It also seems that this federal aid is coming from non-traditional students
who rely on the convenience of online courses due to other commitments. In this aspect,
the private sector is providing a service to students that the public sector has failed to
address. For-profit colleges and universities, in providing this opportunity of a higher
education for a larger population, should be considered a good thing. According to the
Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities, President Obama wants more
college graduates. One effective way to ensure this is to provide access to post-secondary
education to a larger portion of the population.
There has also been a lot of discussion and scrutiny over the high loan default rates
that seem to be associated with these for-profit institutions. This means that a large portion
of the students attending for-profit colleges and universities have been unable to repay
their loans. A former academic advisor from Ashford University takes this issue even
farther when she reveals her experiences at the time of employment. She states that
“students seemed genuinely shocked when they realized they would have to repay student
loans” (Glader, 3). Another aspect of private sector education that ties in with these default
rates is the concept of gainful employment. This concept deals with advantages of a
rewarding career and the ability to find work upon graduation. These two aspects are
interrelated because it is usually necessary that an individual finds a job in order to start
paying back the money that is owed from the loan they took out. Many skeptics of the forprofit institutions have voiced their concerns over these matters and actions have already
been taken by the government in an attempt to improve the situation.
After a little investigating of the default rates from our current education systems, it
became clear that there are two sides to the story. Chairman of the Association of Private
Sector Colleges and Universities, Arthur Kaiser, is quick to clear the air on the issue. Kaiser
brings to light the fact that private sector colleges and universities are providing education
to a “high percentage of lower-income students who have fewer resources than their peers”
(myeducation, 3). By providing the opportunity for a higher education to those who would
usually not be able to in the public sector, the default statistics of for-profits are skewed.
Kaiser goes on to say that “when you compare similarly situated cohorts, our students’
default rates are almost identical to those at community colleges and traditional four-year
colleges” (myeducation, 3). Daniel Bennett, a doctoral student in economics at Florida State
University, has arrived at the same conclusion that “default rates have risen for all of
postsecondary education” (Bennet, 1). Those who would like to see government action
taken on the accessibility of a post-secondary education should first reflect on the fact that
the private sector is providing more opportunity than that of the public sector.
Unfortunately, the government has already stepped in to alleviate what they think is
the problem. The U.S. Department of Education has implemented gainful employment
regulations in an attempt to lower the rate of defaults. The motives behind this legislation
are reasonable and understandable. However, these regulations unfairly and unjustly
burden the private sector even though we have just seen that the public sector is equally at
fault. Kaiser reveals that the “gainful employment regulation requires that private sector
schools face stricter standards for student loan repayment or risk losing federal student
31
aid” (myeducation, 3). In effect, the new legislation is essentially taking away someone’s
opportunity of a post-secondary education. President and chief executive of the National
Black Chamber of Commerce, Harry Alford, and former special counsel to President Bill
Clinton, Lanny Davis, take it further by stating that “ the gainful employment regulation is
probably illegal” (Alford/Davis, 1). While private sector schools are not for everyone, it is
not the governments business to decide who can and cannot be educated.
The fact that some students didn’t realize that loans had to be paid back highlights a
separate issue altogether. As Carey puts it: “you don’t need a college degree to know that
large debt plus small income equals high risk of default” (Carey, 2). This concept, along with
the concept of a loan, is relatively simplistic and should be comprehendible by any
prospective higher education student. In addition to the lack of understanding the premise
of borrowing money, our society should also be able to recognize advertising and recruiting
for what they are. In this day and age it is nearly impossible to avoid advertisements and
the companies behind it know exactly what they are doing. Reverse mortgage
advertisement companies seek to target seniors by airing their ads during specific
television programs that are known to have an older audience. Additionally, for example, if
you did everything that you were told to do in a 30 to 60 second commercial break, you
would possibly have to order a lifetime supply of Shamwows and join a class action
mesothelioma law suit. Maybe the focus of our scrutiny on education should be directed
towards the secondary education in the public sector which has, until now, been without
any sort of competition.
I don’t see anything wrong with the introduction of a business-like model for
education because after all, this is the land of opportunity and the free market. When other
businesses are providing services to their customers and doing well, the government does
not step in and impose unfair regulations. Any government action taken to address the
above stated issues should affect both the public and private sector equally. The current
gainful employment legislation introduced a double standard between the two sectors. It
has also hinted at what some might call corruption, seen in the form of an unjust response
to the public sector education feeling competition for the first time. Competition in the free
market is what has allowed our great country to achieve all that it has thus far, so the
increasing popularity of for-profit institutions may be just what this country needs to
address issues with our current educational systems. “In a time where job creation is out
top priority, we cannot afford to restrict access to higher education” (myeducation, 6). I
have showed that for-profit colleges have earned their place in modern society and the
education system as a whole is where our efforts should be directed to ensure the
foundation for success and greatest chance of rewarding careers.
Sample Carey Paper 4
For-Profit Colleges: Helping or Hurting?
32
The United States has long been considered a global leader in higher education.
However, recent studies have shown that the U.S. is slipping into mediocrity. American students
ranked 25th in math and 17th in science in an international test given recently by the Organisation
for Economic Cooperation and Development (Best Education In The World: Finland, South
Korea Top Country Rankings, U.S. Rated Average ). Additionally, the United States is falling
behind countries like Canada and Japan in the number of young adults who obtain a college
degree. President Obama has declared that by 2020 we shall once again hold the highest
proportion of college degrees in the world (Whitehouse.gov). This is an ambitious goal in a
sluggish economy where federal and state legislators have been forced to cut spending wherever
they can, including in education. In California alone, $1.5 billion was slashed from the
community college budget from 2008 to 2012 (Watanabe). The enormous hit to education
funding over the last several years has forced institutions to reduce the number of students they
admit and limit the number of classes they offer, and as a result enrollment is at a 20-year
low (Rivera).
Meanwhile, one sector of higher education is booming- the for-profit colleges and
universities that are popping up everywhere across the country. Schools like the University of
Phoenix, now the world’s largest single university, have grown at a mind-boggling rate and
profits are going through the roof (FRONTLINE). But are these for-profit institutions providing
a good value for their students, or just for their investors? In this paper, I will discuss some of the
criticisms of these schools, and how the for-profit sector has responded to these criticisms. I will
then analyze the strengths and weaknesses of two specific arguments on this issue.
For-profit schools, by definition, operate under the pressure to continuously grow in order
to bring in high profits for their investors. Some have been accused of encouraging their
recruiters to employ aggressive, and sometimes unethical, tactics to lure more students into
enrollment. Once they get a prospective student to sign on the dotted line, some have even been
accused of pressuring students to lie on their FAFSA in order to cash in on the maximum amount
of financial aid they can get (GAO Report). According to the U.S. Department of Education’s
website, “More than a quarter of for-profit institutions receive 80 percent of their revenues from
taxpayer-financed Federal student aid.” Since so much Federal aid funnels through these
institutions, the government has become concerned about these accusations. The U.S.
Government Accountability Office (GAO) launched an investigation to uncover the high
pressure recruitment tactics and fraudulent activities of some of these schools. They sent
undercover applicants to 15 for-profit schools and found that not only did representatives from
all 15 schools make “deceptive or otherwise questionable statements,” but 4 were caught leading
the undercover applicants to lie on their financial aid forms (Undercover Testing Finds Colleges
Encouraged Fraud and Engaged in Deceptive and Questionable Marketing Practices).
Once students enroll at a for-profit college or university and receive their student loans,
the dismal graduation rate creates additional concerns regarding this industry. According to a
2011 report from the National Center for Education Statistics, 78% of students enrolled in forprofit colleges will not complete their degree within 6 years (Carlozo). For-profit schools are
typically much more expensive than non-profit schools, and these students are still “on the hook”
for whatever money they borrowed for their education whether they obtain a degree or not. This
may explain why the default rate for students from for-profit schools is double that of students
33
from non-profit and public institutions (First Official Three-Year Student Loan Default Rates
Published).
Even for those who graduate, some students from for-profit colleges are finding that their
degrees are not as valuable as they were promised. FRONTLINE’s documentary about the forprofit education industry, “College, Inc.”, featured students like Sherry Haferkamp, who was told
that American Psychological Association accreditation would be obtained for her doctorate
program in psychology at Argosy University, Dallas, TX. Accreditation never came through, and
she is now over $100,000 in debt with student loans for a degree she can’t get a job with. She has
joined 17 others in a lawsuit against the university, alleging that they’ve been defrauded.
The for-profit industry denies allegations such as these and maintains that they provide
important opportunities for those that traditional educational institutions have left behind.
According to Harris Miller, the president of the Career College Association, “Traditional higher
education has become a very socio-demographically elite group of people.” He says that only the
wealthy or upper-middle class can get into a regular university, so for-profits are there to accept
students that “traditional higher education has given up on” (FRONTLINE). Minimal admission
requirements, a focus on career training, and flexible class schedules with many online options
make for-profit schools an attractive choice for lower-income prospects and working adults.
As for the low graduation rates and high student loan defaults, for-profit representatives
say that these issues reside with traditional educational institutions as well. They claim that they
are being unfairly singled out by “elitists” who want non-profit institutions to have an advantage
over the free-market system of education (Darling). They point to legislation such as the
“Gainful Employment Rule,” which will require accountability from for-profit schools who
graduate students with more debt than they can hope to repay.
In the article, “For-Profit Colleges Deserve Some Respect,” Michael J. Seiden offers his
defense of the for-profit education system. Seiden was the president of Western International
University, a for-profit college operated by the same parent company as the University of
Phoenix. As an insider that worked for the industry for over 25 years, it’s no surprise that he
feels the positive aspects of for-profit education far outweigh the negative. What is surprising,
however, is how weak his defense of the industry is. His arguments lack depth and rest heavily
on anecdotal evidence. There are moments when he either has no rebuttal or misses the point
entirely. At other times, he actually brings up the negative aspects of the for-profit educational
model.
With respect to aggressive marketing, Seiden simply admits that there are some for-profit
schools that have been penalized for their tactics. He then quickly switches gears to address the
criticism that for-profits lack admission criteria. Seiden says that “…it can be argued that
everyone deserves an opportunity to receive a quality education,” and indeed who would argue
against that? The issue is that they are signing up students with little likelihood of completing
their degree and saddling them with student loan debt that they won’t be able to repay, but there
is no mention of the high default rates of students from for-profit institutions. Seiden says that,
“Based on anecdotal and personal experience, evaluations of data, and interviews with students,”
about half of the students who enroll are prepared for college and committed to earning their
34
degree, while about 25% need some additional support services to help them successfully
complete their degree, and the remaining 25% will most likely drop out. It’s a leap to think that
anecdotal and personal experience would lead to a breakdown of student outcomes this precise.
Seiden doesn’t say what data he evaluated, but his numbers are inconsistent with published data.
As I mentioned earlier, according to a 2011 report from the National Center for Education
Statistics, the reality is that only about 22% of students at for-profit institutions will complete
their degree (Carlozo).
Seiden provides an even weaker defense against the criticism that for-profit educational
institutions are more concerned with profits than with providing a quality education. Seiden says
that because for-profits are a business, they have to attract and retain students with degree
programs that are “market-driven.” Seiden then contradicts himself by admitting that some
schools may dumb down the curriculum or inflate grades to attract students and increase
profitability. He goes on to say that a good institution will re-invest their profits in quality
education for their students. The truth is that for-profit colleges typically focus on clever
marketing strategies to attract students, and many spend more on marketing than they do on
actual educational instruction (FRONTLINE). At this point it almost seems like Seiden can’t
decide which side he’s arguing for. He makes clumsy statements about the quality of programs
and services that for-profits can provide, while simultaneously revealing reasons why quality
suffers in a profit-driven educational model.
Joshua Woods makes a clearer argument when he illustrates the deceptive recruitment
techniques of for-profit educational institutions in his piece, “Opportunity, Ease, Encouragement,
and Shame: a Short Course in Pitching For-Profit Education.” Woods compares the students who
get duped by the for-profit education boom to the investors who lost everything in the dot com
craze. He says that the tactics investment firms used to lure amateur investors, such as giving
vague advice and encouraging overconfidence, are the same tactics that recruiters are using today
to convince unwitting students to register for programs they may not even be qualified for.
To illustrate this practice, Woods describes his experience when he posed as a 31-year-old
construction worker with nothing more than a high school education and applied for an MBA
program at 4 for-profit colleges and 1 public university. Woods wanted to see how the schools
would respond to a prospective student like him, and he wanted to test if the schools would
address the challenges of pursuing such a goal. He says that the “guidance counselors” from each
of the 4 for-profit colleges responded with “four basic sales themes: opportunity, ease,
encouragement, and shame.” Only Michigan State University recognized that the prospective
student was not qualified and directed him to look into undergraduate programs. He purposely
peppered his request for information with misspellings and poor grammar to emphasize the
desperation of for-profit institutions to sign students up, even if they are terrible candidates.
Additionally, each of the 4 for-profit schools contacted him numerous times over the next month,
even though he never returned any of their calls or emails. The underlying assumption here is
that such eagerness to sign people up who are so obviously unprepared results in students
attending for-profit colleges who are ill-equipped to complete their degree. These students then
drop out, are unable to improve their earning potential, and then default on their student loans in
large numbers. The schools are no worse for the wear; profits keep coming from additional
students with financial aid checks. Society as a whole suffers from this cycle, though. We come
35
no closer to our country’s educational goals, people are left with staggering debt, and taxpayers
continue to foot the bill.
Woods calls for a number of ways that he thinks government should address this crisis,
including tougher regulations on recruiters, mandatory completion and placement requirements
on for-profit schools, and more stringent entrance standards. Indeed these measures might make
a difference for students like Sherry Haferkamp, who are simply trying to improve their lives
through education. However, heavily regulating the for-profit school system could make
investors nervous, which could cause stocks to go down and damage the for-profit industry as a
whole. With the current situation of traditional institutions tightening their belts to stay afloat, the
collapse of for-profit institutions would leave millions of students with nowhere to go. We may
need a thriving for-profit educational system to be able to meet the goal to once again be the
most educated country in the world (FRONTLINE).
Bibliography
"Best Education In The World: Finland, South Korea Top Country Rankings, U.S. Rated Average ." 27
November 2012. The Huffington Post.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/27/besteducation-in-the-wor_n_2199795.html. 1 April 2013.
Carlozo, Lou. "Why college students stop short of a degree." 27 March
2012. Reuters. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/27/us-attn-andrea-education-dropoutsidUSBRE82Q0Y120120327. 13 March 2013.
College, Inc. Dir. John Maggio. Perf. FRONTLINE. 2010. PBS.
Darling, Brian. "For-Profit Education Under Assault." 25 September 2010. RedState.com.
Eisman, Steve. "Subprime goes to college." New York Post 6 June 2010.
"First Official Three-Year Student Loan Default Rates Published." 28 September
2012. Ed.gov. http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/first-official-three-year-student-loandefault-rates-published. 14 April 2013.
GAO Report. "For-Profit Colleges: Undercover Testing Finds Colleges Encouraged Fraud and Engaged
in." Report number GAO-10-948T. 2010.
"Obama Administration Announces New Steps to Protect Students from Ineffective Career College
Programs." 2 June 2011. Ed.gov. http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/gainful-employmentregulations. 10 April 2013.
Rivera, Carla. "Community college enrollment at 20-year low." 26 March 2013. Los Angeles
Times. http://articles.latimes.com/2013/mar/26/local/la-me-0326-college-cuts-20130326. 9 April
2013.
Seiden, Michael J. "For-Profit Colleges Deserve Some Respect." The Chronicle of Higher
Education Issue 41 Volume 55: A80.
"Undercover Testing Finds Colleges Encouraged Fraud and Engaged in Deceptive and Questionable
Marketing Practices." 4 August 2010. GAO.gov. http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-948T. 10
April 2013.
Watanabe, Stephen Ceasar and Teresa. "Education takes a beating nationwide." 31 July 2011. Los
Angeles Times. http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/31/nation/la-na-education-budget-cuts20110731. 1 April 2013.
Whitehouse.gov. n.d. http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education/higher-education. 5 April 2013.
Woods, Joshua. "Opportunity, Ease, Encouragement, and Shame: a Short Course in Pitching For-Profit
Education." Chronicle of Higher Education 13 January 2006.
36