Advertisement

The Effect of the Gainful Employment Regulatory Uncertainty on Student Enrollment at For-Profit Institutions of Higher Education

  • Joselynn Hawkins FountainEmail author
Article

Abstract

In 2010, the Obama Administration proposed new regulations designed to hold institutions of higher education (IHEs) accountable for student outcomes. I examine the effects of the regulatory uncertainty surrounding these “Gainful Employment” (GE) regulations on enrollment at for-profit IHEs. I utilize informational debt rates of GE institutions along with enrollment data from the integrated postsecondary education data system to employ a difference in difference design that compares enrollment before and after the GE regulatory proposal at for-profit IHEs to enrollment at public and nonprofit IHEs. My results suggest that for-profit IHEs experienced slower enrollment growth relative to public and nonprofit IHEs in the post-GE period. Additionally, enrollment of low-income students appeared to be disproportionately affected by the GE regulatory uncertainty.

Keywords

For-profit colleges Gainful employment Student enrollment Higher education Regulatory uncertainty 

References

  1. Belfield, C. R. (2013). Student loans and repayment rates: The role of for-profit colleges. Research in Higher Education, 54(1), 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bender, L. W. (1977). Federal regulation and higher education. Washington, D.C.: American Association for Higher Education.Google Scholar
  3. Bettinger, E. P., Long, B. T., Oreopoulos, P., & Sanbonmatsu, L. (2012). The role of application assistance and information in college decisions: Results from the HandR Block FAFSA experiment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 127(3), 1205–1242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Betts, J. (1996). What do students know about Wages? Evidence from a survey of undergraduates. Journal of Human Resources, 31(1), 27–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, J. R., & Hoxby, C. M. (Eds.). (2014). How the financial crisis and great recession affected higher education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. Carleton, D. (2002). Landmark congressional laws on Education. Connecticut: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cellini, S. R. (2012). For-profit higher education: An assessment of costs and benefits. National Tax Journal, 65(1), 153–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cellini, S. R., & Chaudhary, L. (2014). The labor market returns to a for-profit college education. Economics of Education Review, 43, 125–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cellini, S. R., & Darolia, R. (2017). High costs, low resources, and missing information: explaining student borrowing in the for-profit sector. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 671(1), 92–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cellini, S. R., & Goldin, C. (2014). Does federal student aid raise tuition? New evidence on for-profit colleges. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 6(4), 174–206.Google Scholar
  11. Christman, D. E. (2000). Multiple realities: Characteristics of loan defaulters at a two-year public institution. Community College Review, 27(4), 16–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cottom, T. M., & Darity, W. A., Jr. (2017). For-profit universities: The shifting landscape of marketized higher education. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Deming, D. J., Goldin, C., & Katz, L. F. (2012). The for-profit postsecondary school sector: Nimble critters or agile predators? The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(1), 139–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dinkelman, T., & Martínez, A. C. (2014). Investing in schooling in Chile: The role of information about financial aid for higher education. Review of Economics and Statistics, 96(2), 244–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dynarski, M. (1994). Who defaults on student loans? Findings from the national postsecondary student aid study. Economics of Education Review, 13(1), 55–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fain, P. (2011). More Selective For-Profits. Inside higher ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/11/11/enrollments-tumble-profit-colleges
  17. Federal Register. (2014). Program integrity: Gainful employment; Final Rule 79 Fed. Reg. 64889 Google Scholar
  18. Gladieux, L., & Perna, L. (2005). Borrowers who drop out: A neglected aspect of the college student loan trend. National Center report #05-2. California: National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.Google Scholar
  19. Goodwin, D. (1991). Beyond defaults: Indicators for assessing proprietary school quality. Washington, DC: Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary.Google Scholar
  20. Greene, L. L. (1989). An economic analysis of student loan default. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(1), 61–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Harrast, S. A. (2004). Undergraduate borrowing: A study of debtor students and their ability to retire undergraduate loans. Journal of Student Financial Aid, 34(1), 21–37.Google Scholar
  22. Hentschke, G. C., & Parry, S. C. (2015). Innovation in times of regulatory uncertainty: Responses to the threat of “gainful employment”. Innovative Higher Education, 40(2), 97–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Herr, E., & Burt, L. (2005). Predicting student loan default for the University of Texas at Austin. Journal of Student Financial Aid, 35(2), 27–49.Google Scholar
  24. Hossler, D., & Kwon, J. (2015). Does federal financial aid policy influence the institutional aid policies of four-year colleges and universities? An exploratory analysis. Journal of Student Financial Aid, 45(3), 49–64.Google Scholar
  25. Hunter, B., & Gehring, D. D. (2005). The cost of federal legislation on higher education: The hidden tax on tuition. NASPA Journal, 42(4), 478–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Karp, G. (2011). For-profit college officials say federal scrutiny could make businesses stronger. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved from: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-06-21/business/ct-biz-0621-bf-private-college-side-20110621_1_devry-university-chamberlain-college-career-education
  27. Knapp, L. G., & Seaks, T. G. (1992). An analysis of the probability of default on federally guaranteed student loans. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 74(3), 404–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Long, M. C., Goldhaber, D., & Huntington-Klein, N. (2014). Do completed college majors respond to changes in wages? Economics of Education Review, 49, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Looney, A., and Yannelis, C. (2015). A crisis in student loans? How changes in the characteristics of borrowers and in the institutions they attended contributed to rising loan defaults. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1–89. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43752167
  30. Lynch, M., Engle, J., & Cruz, J. L. (2010). Subprime opportunity: The unfulfilled promise of for-profit colleges and universities. Washington, D.C.: Education Trust.Google Scholar
  31. Moore, R. W. (1995). The illusion of convergence: Federal student aid policy in community colleges and proprietary schools. New Directions for Community Colleges, 1995(91), 71–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Perlman, D. H. (1977). Self-study report by Roosevelt University on the impact of government programs and the cost of compliance with government regulations for the sloan commission on government and higher education. Illinois: Roosevelt University.Google Scholar
  33. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  34. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (2003). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. California: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Podgursky, M., Ehlert, M., Monroe, R., & Watson, D. (2002). Student loan defaults and enrollment persistence. Journal of Student Financial Aid, 32, 27–42.Google Scholar
  36. Stein, R. H. (1979). Impact of federal intervention on higher education. Research in Higher Education, 10(1), 71–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Steiner, M., & Teszler, N. (2003). The characteristics associated with student loan default at Texas AandM University. College Station: Texas Guaranteed in association with Texas AandM University.Google Scholar
  38. U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). (2010). For-profit colleges: Undercover testing finds colleges encouraged fraud and engaged in deceptive and questionable marketing practices. GAO-10-948T. Retrieved from: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-948T
  39. U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee. (2012). For-profit higher education: The failure to safeguard the federal investment and ensure student success. S.PRT.112-37. Retrieved from http://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/for_profit_report/PartI.pdf
  40. Volkwein, J. F., & Cabrera, A. F. (1998). Who defaults on student loans? The effects of race, class, and gender on borrower behavior. In R. Fossey & M. Bateman (Eds.), Condemning students to debt: College loans and public policy (pp. 105–126). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  41. Volkwein, J. F., & Szelest, B. P. (1995). Individual and campus characteristics associated with student loan default. Research in Higher Education, 36, 41–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wilms, W. W., Moore, R. W., & Bolus, R. E. (1987). Whose fault is default? A study of the impact of student characteristics and institutional practices on guaranteed student loan default rates in California. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(1), 41–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wiswall, M., & Zafar, B. (2015). How do college students respond to public information about earnings? Journal of Human Capital, 9(2), 117–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wong, A. (2015). Dollar signs in uniform: Why for-profit colleges target veterans. The Atlantic: Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/06/for-profit-college-veterans-loophole/396731/
  45. Woo, J. H. (2002a). Clearing accounts: The causes of student loan default. Rancho Cordova: EdFund.Google Scholar
  46. Woo, J. H. (2002b). Factors affecting the probability of default: Student loans in California. Journal of Student Financial Aid, 32(2), 5–23.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Congressional Research ServiceWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations