IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/17710.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The For-Profit Postsecondary School Sector: Nimble Critters or Agile Predators?

Author

Listed:
  • David J. Deming
  • Claudia Goldin
  • Lawrence F. Katz

Abstract

Private for-profit institutions have been the fastest growing part of the U.S. higher education sector. For-profit enrollment increased from 0.2 percent to 9.1 percent of total enrollment in degree-granting schools from 1970 to 2009, and for-profit institutions account for the majority of enrollments in non-degree granting postsecondary schools. We describe the schools, students, and programs in the for-profit higher education sector, its phenomenal recent growth, and its relationship to the federal and state governments. Using the 2004 to 2009 Beginning Postsecondary Students (BPS) longitudinal survey we assess outcomes of a recent cohort of first-time undergraduates who attended for-profits relative to comparable students who attended community colleges or other public or private non-profit institutions. We find that relative to these other institutions, for-profits educate a larger fraction of minority, disadvantaged, and older students, and they have greater success at retaining students in their first year and getting them to complete short programs at the certificate and associate degree levels. But we also find that for-profit students end up with higher unemployment and "idleness" rates and lower earnings six years after entering programs than do comparable students from other schools, and that they have far greater student debt burdens and default rates on their student loans.

Suggested Citation

  • David J. Deming & Claudia Goldin & Lawrence F. Katz, 2011. "The For-Profit Postsecondary School Sector: Nimble Critters or Agile Predators?," NBER Working Papers 17710, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:17710
    Note: CH ED LS
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w17710.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stephanie Riegg Cellini, 2010. "Financial aid and for-profit colleges: Does aid encourage entry?," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(3), pages 526-552.
    2. Sascha O. Becker & Andrea Ichino, 2002. "Estimation of average treatment effects based on propensity scores," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 2(4), pages 358-377, November.
    3. David H. Autor & Lawrence F. Katz & Melissa S. Kearney, 2008. "Trends in U.S. Wage Inequality: Revising the Revisionists," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 90(2), pages 300-323, May.
    4. Stephanie Riegg Cellini, 2009. "Crowded Colleges and College Crowd-Out: The Impact of Public Subsidies on the Two-Year College Market," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 1(2), pages 1-30, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jacqmin, Julien, 2014. "The Emergence of For-Profit Higher Education Institutions," MPRA Paper 59299, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Stephanie Riegg Cellini & Claudia Goldin, 2014. "Does Federal Student Aid Raise Tuition? New Evidence on For-Profit Colleges," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 6(4), pages 174-206, November.
    3. Stephanie R. Cellini & Rajeev Darolia & Lesley J. Turner, 2020. "Where Do Students Go When For-Profit Colleges Lose Federal Aid?," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 12(2), pages 46-83, May.
    4. Stephanie Riegg Cellini & Rajeev Darolia, 2017. "High Costs, Low Resources, and Missing Information: Explaining Student Borrowing in the For-Profit Sector," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 671(1), pages 92-112, May.
    5. Cellini, Stephanie Riegg & Chaudhary, Latika, 2014. "The labor market returns to a for-profit college education," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 125-140.
    6. Zachary G. Davis, 2023. "Unbundling For-Profit Higher Education: Relaxing the 90/10 Revenue Constraint," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 49(2), pages 176-200, April.
    7. Cellini, Stephanie Riegg, 2012. "For-Profit Higher Education: An Assessment of Costs and Benefits," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 65(1), pages 153-179, March.
    8. Sarena Goodman & Alice Henriques Volz, 2020. "Attendance Spillovers between Public and For-Profit Colleges: Evidence from Statewide Variation in Appropriations for Higher Education," Education Finance and Policy, MIT Press, vol. 15(3), pages 428-456, Summer.
    9. Andrew Foote & Michel Grosz, 2020. "The Effect of Local Labor Market Downturns on Postsecondary Enrollment and Program Choice," Education Finance and Policy, MIT Press, vol. 15(4), pages 593-622, Fall.
    10. Darolia, Rajeev, 2013. "Integrity versus access? The effect of federal financial aid availability on postsecondary enrollment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 101-114.
    11. Andrea Pufahl & Christoph R. Weiss, 2009. "Evaluating the effects of farm programmes: results from propensity score matching," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 36(1), pages 79-101, March.
    12. Paolo Naticchioni & Silvia Loriga, 2011. "Short and Long Term Evaluations of Public Employment Services in Italy," Applied Economics Quarterly (formerly: Konjunkturpolitik), Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, vol. 57(3), pages 201-229.
    13. Jae Song & David J Price & Fatih Guvenen & Nicholas Bloom & Till von Wachter, 2019. "Firming Up Inequality," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 134(1), pages 1-50.
    14. Dettling, Lisa J. & Kearney, Melissa S., 2014. "House prices and birth rates: The impact of the real estate market on the decision to have a baby," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 82-100.
    15. Zhang, Yingjie & Zhang, Tianzheng & Zeng, Yingxiang & Cheng, Baodong & Li, Hongxun, 2021. "Designating National Forest Cities in China: Does the policy improve the urban living environment?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    16. Bloom, Nicholas & Hassan, Tarek Alexander & Kalyani, Aakash & Lerner, Josh & Tahoun, Ahmed, 2021. "The diffusion of disruptive technologies," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 113870, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    17. Dettmann, E. & Becker, C. & Schmeißer, C., 2011. "Distance functions for matching in small samples," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 55(5), pages 1942-1960, May.
    18. Rabensteiner, Thomas & Guschanski, Alexander, 2022. "Autonomy and wage divergence: evidence from European survey data," Greenwich Papers in Political Economy 37925, University of Greenwich, Greenwich Political Economy Research Centre.
    19. Amarendra Sharma, 2019. "Indira Awas Yojana and Housing Adequacy: An Evaluation using Propensity Score Matching," ASARC Working Papers 2019-05, The Australian National University, Australia South Asia Research Centre.
    20. Katchova, Ani L., 2010. "Agricultural Contracts and Alternative Marketing Options: A Matching Analysis," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 42(2), pages 1-16, May.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • I2 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education
    • I23 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Higher Education; Research Institutions
    • J24 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demand and Supply of Labor - - - Human Capital; Skills; Occupational Choice; Labor Productivity

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:17710. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.