PLEASE READ INSTRUCTIONS AND MAKE THE NOTES ON THE ARTICLE 

PLEASE FOLLOWING INSTRUCTIONS BELOW WITH THE ATTACHED ARTICLE

Article Critique, Annotate Article

Here are some guiding instructions below

Please first fully read the piece.

1. I have made a few annotations in each document to get us started, but I encourage you to also highlight and add your own comments.

2. What stands out to you?

3. What is an interesting point you’d like to hear from others about?

4. What do you agree/disagree with?

5. What is surprising that you’d like to flag as a point for others to consider and comment upon? 

6. Please prompt each other, pose good questions, and work to add value to this conversation by virtue of your involvement this week. Over the course of the week, the expectation is that folks will make at least ten total annotations and/or responses to others’ annotations, in total, across all documents (i.e., not necessarily five posts on each article). Note that this is an absolute minimum requirement, and my hope is that you will actually be interested in participating at a higher degree than this. 

Exploring the For-Profit Experience:
An

Ethnography of a For-Profit College

Constance

Iloh

University of California, Irvine

The for-profit college sector is arguably the most controversial and least
understood sector of higher education today. The past decade has ushered
in a wealth of public concern and scrutiny as to whether for-profit colleges
and universities are providing a quality education to underserved student
populations. While their politicization has captured immense attention,
there is far less empirical research on student experiences at for-profit insti-
tutions to better inform conceptual, institutional, and practical understand-
ing of this sector of postsecondary education. Using ethnographic data from
one midsize for-profit college in a suburban city, the author spent seven
months exploring educational culture from the perspective of enrolled stu-
dents. The findings illuminate four themes: (a) student desire for institu-
tional transparency, (b) the perception of high-quality in-person
instruction, (c) varied experiences based on student schedule and learning
needs, and (d) the role of age in shaping peer interactions.

KEYWORDS: for-profit colleges, ethnography, qualitative research, higher
education, student experiences, vocational education, adult learners, institu-
tional culture, privatization, social context, proprietary education

For-profit colleges and universities are rapidly changing the look, feel, andoutcomes of college attendance, particularly among students most

CONSTANCE ILOH is a UC Chancellor’s Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of California,
Irvine, 2064 Education Building, Irvine, CA 92697, USA; e-mail: ciloh@uci.edu. Her
research addresses: (a) college access and choice, (b) educational stratification and the
experiences of underserved populations in postsecondary education, and (c) for-profit
higher education and community colleges. Iloh has authored several peer-reviewed
journal articles on the changing landscape of postsecondary education, including
‘‘Understanding For-Profit College and Community College Choice’’ in Teachers
College Record. She is the principal investigator of a grant exploring online learning in
vocational higher education. In 2016, Iloh was recognized as one of the nation’s brightest
stars and change agents in education as a Forbes 30 under 30 honoree. Iloh’s forthcom-
ing book on contemporary college-going narratives and for-profit higher education will
be published by the Johns Hopkins University Press.

American Educational Research Journal

June 2016, Vol. 53, No. 3, pp. 427–

455

DOI: 10.3102/0002831216637338

� 2016 AERA. http://aerj.aera.net

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.3102%2F0002831216637338&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2016-06-01

marginalized in postsecondary education. When compared with their counter-
parts attending other higher education institutions, for-profit college students are
more likely to be older, women, students of color, and come from lower-income
and less educated families (Chung, 2012; Iloh, 2014; Iloh & Tierney, 2013; Iloh &
Toldson, 2013; Oseguera & Malagan, 2011; Rosenbaum, Deil-Amen, & Person,
2006). As the traditional model and population of American higher education
continues to shift, scholars, practitioners, and policymakers are now challenged
with understanding the educational experiences had by the more than 2 million
students enrolled in U.S. for-profit colleges and universities today.

It is also important to understand if and how the educational conditions
of for-profit colleges foster returns to the student, especially considering the
costs and debt associated with enrolling in the for-profit sector (Cellini,
2012). Ninety-six percent of for-profit college students take out student loans
(Health, Education, Labor and Pensions [HELP] Committee, 2012). In com-
parison, 13% of students at community colleges, 48% at four-year public,
and 57% at four-year private nonprofit colleges borrow money to pay for
school. For-profit schools also enroll far more high-dollar borrowers. Fifty-
seven percent of bachelor’s students who graduate from a for-profit college
owe $30,000 or more (HELP Committee, 2012). In contrast, 25% of those
who earned degrees in the private, nonprofit sector and 12% from the public
sector borrowed at this level (HELP Committee, 2012).

Due to ethical and quality concerns, the past several years have brought
increased scrutiny, oversight, and trouble to the for-profit higher education
industry. The latest gainful employment ruling will allow the Department of
Education to take federal financial aid away from career college programs
that fail to meet minimum thresholds with respect to the debt-to-income
rates of their graduates, putting institutions at a higher risk of closing
(Heller, 2011; Mayotte, 2015; Schneider, 2014). The recent closure of one
of the largest for-profit higher education companies in North America,
Corinthian Colleges, displaced more than 16,000 students (Kirkham, 2015).
Some for-profit institutions have even sought to switch their schools to non-
profit status in order to free them from the regulatory burdens associated
with for-profit colleges (Shireman, 2015). Although the role and efficacy of
for-profit higher education is still debated, contemporary discussions would
be remiss to overlook the for-profit sector’s impact on 21st-century college
students and marginalized student groups in particular.

For-profit empirical research most often employs quantitative methods,
which ‘‘can reveal what works—but not how it works, who and what made
it work . . . and the meaning students ascribe to their experience’’ (Harper,
2007, p. 56). Further, it becomes difficult to fully understand and foster the con-
ditions to replicate or discontinue educational practices in the absence of voice
and sense making among students who actually experienced them (Harper,
2007). While national concern and reform efforts in the for-profit postsecondary
sector escalate, research that positions students as primary stakeholders

Iloh

428

occupies space at the margins of higher education scholarship. This article aims
to reconcile the large methodological and scholarly gaps in the for-profit liter-
ature by detailing an ethnographic study of the culture of a for-profit campus
through observations and the vocalized perceptions of enrolled students.

This article begins with a description of the for-profit postsecondary
education industry and its students. Next, I discuss ethnography broadly
as a research method for understanding social spaces, processes, and inter-
actions, paying particular attention to its utility in the field of postsecondary
education. I then highlight the findings of a seven-month ethnographic study
examining the cultural dynamics of one for-profit institution. The article con-
cludes with new considerations for both proprietary college scholarship and
higher education research.

The For-Profit Higher Education Sector

The for-profit postsecondary school sector encompasses privately funded
taxpaying institutions that generate profit by providing post–high school
degrees or credentials (Deming, Goldin, & Katz, 2012; Iloh, 2014; Ruch,
2001). For-profit colleges and universities (FPCUs) have highly focused mis-
sions limited to specific industries and fields of study that are targeted to spe-
cific segments of the population (Gilpin, Saunders, & Stoddard, 2015; Ruch,
2001). In responding to labor demands of numerous employers, trades, and
professions, FPCUs develop and offer programs that train students for posi-
tions where there is sufficient demand and for which investment in schooling
is likely to be ‘‘recoverable’’ with increased wages they can accrue.

For-profit colleges and universities have been a component of the educa-
tional enterprise since the 1800s (Kinser, 2006), but the recent rise of these insti-
tutions has pushed higher education researchers to more intently consider their
impact on postsecondary education. On average, the for-profit sector has expe-
rienced a year-to-year growth rate of over 11% since 1976, while higher educa-
tion’s total average yearly growth rate is only 1.6% (National Center for
Education Statistics [NCES], 2006). In 1999, FPCUs enrolled approximately
629,000 students, or a little over 4% of the nation’s then 15.2 million students
(Heller, 2011). By 2009, this sector increased to 2.2 million students, or almost
11% of the nation’s 21 million college students (Knapp, Kelly-Reid, & Ginder,
2011; also see Heller, 2011). Most recently, this trend in enrollment growth
has changed. In 2013, four-year, for-profit colleges had the largest enrollment
decrease in postsecondary education at 9.7%, followed by two-year public col-
leges at 3.1% (National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, 2013). In this
same year, enrollment at four-year public colleges and four-year private, non-
profit colleges actually increased by 0.3% and 1.3%, respectively (National
Student Clearinghouse Research Center, 2013). Even with the rise and most
recent decline in enrollment at FPCUs, colleges are now challenged to learn
from the for-profit college industry, especially in regards to meeting demand

Ethnography of a For-Profit College

429

and starting courses and certificate programs at multiple times throughout the
year (Van Der Werf & Sabatier, 2009).

Scope and Heterogeneity of the For-Profit Sector

A noteworthy challenge in understanding the culture and practices of
FPCUs is outlining the sector’s immense institutional heterogeneity. The 15
largest for-profit institutions account for almost 60% of for-profit enrollments
(Bennett, Lucchesi, & Vedder, 2010). While large for-profit institutions
account for the majority of the sector’s enrollments, more of the sector can
be described as smaller career colleges that focus on a wide range of shorter
degree and certificate programs (Bennett et al., 2010; Hentschke, 2011).

Classifying the culture of the for-profit sector is also difficult as new owner-
ship of FPCUs often results in name changes, separate campuses combining to
form new systems, and multi-campus systems possessing distinct degree pro-
grams, accreditations, and identities at each location (Kinser, 2006). One of
the most widely used classifications was provided by the Education
Commission of the States (ECS) and was specifically designed to highlight the
changing and varied landscape of for-profit higher education (Kelly, 2001).
Focusing on degree-granting institutions, FPCUs were divided into three catego-
ries: enterprise colleges, super systems, and Internet institutions (Kinser, 2006).

Enterprise colleges are privately owned and operated by an individual or
small company. Most of these colleges have relatively small enrollments—
typically fewer than 500 students per campus (Kelly, 2001). The super systems
are the growth engines of the for-profit sector and are described as multistate,
multi-campus institutions with stock that trades on Wall Street (Kelly, 2001).
The Internet institutions are the virtual institutions of the for-profit sector,
and they have no bricks and mortar buildings except for corporate offices
(Kinser, 2006). While it is common for many casual observers to conflate
for-profit higher education with distance learning, such a linkage does not dis-
tinguish this sector from the non-profit institutions as online education is
offered in both for-profit and nonprofit universities (Breneman, Pusser, &
Turner, 2006). ‘‘Millennium College,’’ the institution profiled in this study,
would be classified as an enterprise college as its student body is under 500
students and it is not solely an Internet institution. While this study has no
intent to generalize to the for-profit sector at large, Millennium College was
particularly attractive for ethnographic purposes because it represents the
online and land campus component common at many for-profit institutions.
Millennium College also represents a midpoint between large publicly traded
for-profit colleges and smaller proprietary institutions.

For-Profit College Students

Proprietary institutions tend to serve students who are most disadvan-
taged by educational and societal opportunity gaps (Iloh, 2014; in press).

Iloh

430

In 2010, FPCUs enrolled 11% of all students in postsecondary education, and
students of color represent 40% of these enrollments (NCES, 2012). Past data
also indicate that proprietary schools have served relatively high proportions
of minority students for some time. In 1977, 40% of proprietary students versus
33% of community college students were of color (Jung, 1980). From 2000 to
2008, the percentage of low-income students—between ages 18 and 26 and
whose total household income is near or below the federal poverty level—en-
rolling at for-profit institutions increased from 13% to 19% while the percent-
age enrolling in public four-year institutions declined from 20% to 15%
(Institute for Higher Education Policy, 2011). The most likely age, race, and
income combination represented in the proprietary sector is low-income
Black women (Institute for Higher Education Policy, 2010).

Other scholarship highlights additional characteristics of for-profit college
students by exploring elements of their college choice. Chung (2012) stressed
that a primary difficulty in defining choice outcomes comes from the fact that
students, particularly those attending for-profit colleges, have been known to
be ‘‘very mobile’’ across the set of available institutional choices. Upon high
school completion, they are more likely to delay college, and then, upon
enrollment, they are more likely to drop out of college, transfer, and reenter
a different college. In another study that examined elements of for-profit col-
lege choice, Oseguera, Kimball, and Hwang (2011) found that students attend-
ing a for-profit college are more likely to value education to find a job over
students in other sectors of higher education. Another recent study found
for-profit college students based their choice on long-term projections of ben-
efits, which allowed them to take the risk of accruing high levels of debt (Iloh
& Tierney, 2014a). Many of these students valued services such as networking
opportunities, hands-on training, and apprenticeships in preparing them for
a career in a specific field.

Educational Characteristics of For-Profit Colleges and Universities

Focus on Student Customer

The structure and governance of the for-profit sector has a customer ori-
entation that focuses on the student. FPCUs are often focused on providing
a product for the student customer because in doing so, these institutions are
able to increase their profits and maximize shareholder wealth (Bennett
et al., 2010; Iloh & Tierney, 2013). The customer service emphasis in the
for-profit sector not only leads to a focus on particular student services,
but also a learner-centered pedagogical approach (Berg, 2005). Examples
of the for-profit customer service orientation are often illustrated through
student-focused admissions practices and small faculty-to-student ratios on
campus (Bennett et al., 2010; Kelly, 2001).

Ethnography of a For-Profit College

431

Faculty Roles

For-profit colleges alter the familiar paradigm that defines the academic
life of faculty at many traditional colleges and universities, namely, teaching,
research, and service (Lechuga, 2008). While descriptions of faculty in the
for-profit sector are limited, almost all note that for-profit faculty devote
nearly all of their time to teaching, do not receive tenure, and have limited
control over the curriculum as course content is highly standardized and pre-
developed (Breneman et al., 2006; Kinser, 2006; Lechuga, 2006). Moreover,
faculty at FPCUs are more likely to be practitioners working in the field in
which they teach and have substantial connections to potential employers
for students (Berg, 2005).

Vocational Orientation and Career Services

The objective of many for-profit institutions is straightforward in that
they exist in order to prepare students for immediate employment in a rather
carefully defined occupational field. Moreover, for-profit programs are typi-
cally not meant to prepare students to continue to another form of higher
education, as is the case with most community colleges that are also tasked
with supporting transfer efforts (Deming et al., 2012). Because FPCUs cannot
rely primarily on public funding, they must be able to recover nearly all costs
associated with the provision of their product in the form of tuition (Bennett
et al., 2010; Hentschke, 2011). For this reason, FPCUs tend to focus on
degree programs with measurable skill outcomes that are more likely to
pass a cost-benefit analysis for students (Bennett et al., 2010; Iloh &
Tierney, 2014a). The majority of for-profit colleges provide a small (three
to five) assortment of short certificate programs in career-oriented fields,
such as personal and culinary services, allied health professions, business
support services, computer and information technology (IT) services, cos-
metology, and legal support (Chung, 2009). Because of their vocational
nature, FPCUs can be accredited at an institutional level but also have sep-
arate forms of accreditation based on programs, such as nursing.

In addition to occupational training, most proprietary schools provide
students with support services for job placement as FPCUs attract students
by promising an educational experience that will result in a career. For-profit
college connections with employers are usually stronger than those found in
traditional institutions (Rosenbaum et al., 2006). Further, many of the
employer requests that are sometimes resented at public institutions are
actively encouraged at FPCUs (Rosenbaum et al., 2006).

High Enrollment of Post-Traditional Students and Adult Learners

Today, 85%, or about 15 million undergraduates, are a diverse group
that includes adult learners, employees who study part-time, low-income

Iloh

432

students, commuters, and student parents (Soares, 2013). For-profit institu-
tions have been particularly assertive in creating programs and policies to
address the needs of post-traditional students and adult learners (Chao,
DeRocco, & Flynn, 2007). Over 56% of students attending for-profit institu-
tions are over the age of 24, compared to only 30% of those at private and
public nonprofits (Silber & Fisher, 2005). Adult prospective students who
are interested in FPCUs are particularly attracted to schools that offer accel-
erated vocational programs, online classes, and career counselors (Public
Agenda, 2014). Thus, proprietary colleges are important sites for understand-
ing the college experiences of post-traditional students and adult learners
(Iloh & Tierney, 2014b).

On Understanding Ethnography and Culture

Ethnography

As both a process and an outcome of research (Agar, 1980; Ellis, Adams,
& Bochner, 2011; Iloh & Tierney, 2014b), ethnography is a way of studying
a cultural entity as well as the final, written product of that research
(Creswell, 2007). In this text, I depart from viewing ethnography as merely
a process and product. While ethnography is a useful tool for collecting data
on a particular group or organization, it also serves as a way to think about
cultural spaces. Ethnography as a matter of epistemology is significant as it
places a primacy on situated meaning and contextualized experience as the
basis for explaining and understanding social behavior (Brewer, 2000; Iloh &
Tierney, 2014b). As an epistemological tool, ethnography affords the
researcher a patterned way of perceiving, believing, acting, and evaluating
what members of social groups develop within and across the events of
everyday life (Atkinson, Delamont, Coffey, Lofland, & Lofland, 2007;
Lichterman, 2015; Walford, 2008). This article draws on both the epistemo-
logical and methodological power of ethnography.

To establish patterns of cultural meaning, the ethnographer engages in
extensive fieldwork, gathering information through observation, interviews,
and materials helpful in developing a portrait of the culture-sharing group
(Agar, 1980; Hammersley & Atkisnson, 2007). Fieldwork provides a
situation-based inquiry process for the researcher to explore questions and
develop interpretations (Erickson, 1984). Through ethnographic fieldwork,
what is unfamiliar becomes familiar.

A distinct feature and primary technique used in ethnographic research
is participant observation (Creswell, 2007; Dahlke, Hall, & Phinney, 2015).
Ethnography usually involves the researcher participating overtly or covertly
in people’s daily lives for an extended period of time (Hammersley &
Atkinson, 2007). It is through the extensive and total immersion in a context
that a participant observer is able to build a rich descriptive picture of those

Ethnography of a For-Profit College

433

studied as a backdrop against which explanations can be explored (Geertz,
1973). Interviews are also often used to organize and classify information,
especially that which is not clearly understood through observation
(Spradley, 1980).

Using an Interpretive Framework to Understand Institutional Culture

The goal of ethnography is to make sense of a culture within a bounded
space or group (Creswell, 2007; Zaharlick, 1992). In this study, an interpre-
tive framework was used to understand the educational culture of a propri-
etary college. Accordingly, culture was explored from interpretations based
on the student perspective (e.g., Kuh & Arnold, 1993; Levine & Cureton,
1998; Moffatt, 1989; Nathan, 2005; Ray & Rosow, 2012; Schwartz & Lever,
1976). The interpretive framework posits that the culture of an institution
cannot be understood simply by examining its formal structural aspects—its
policies, methods of decision making, and prescribed rules (Deal &
Kennedy, 1982). Interpretive research is based on an assumption of subjec-
tive human experience as ontologically real and accessible through dialogue
within a qualitative framework (Terre Blanche & Kelly, 1999). Further, the
qualitative interpretive approach attempts to tell the story from the partici-
pant’s perspective (Elliott, Fischer, & Rennie, 1999).

Utility of Ethnography of For-Profit Institutions

Many of the publications on the for-profit sector are based on anecdotal
evidence, with fewer studies basing their reports on quantitative and quali-
tative research methods, including survey analysis, interviews, and analysis
of data sets from the Integrated Postsecondary Educational Data System
(IPEDS; Lechuga & Hentschke, 2003). Given the array of proposed and
implemented policy changes that have impacted proprietary higher educa-
tion, there is a need for close and prolonged ethnographic engagement
with students, faculty, and leaders in order to explore the many assumptions
that exist regarding for-profit institutions. In the policy realm, ethnographic
inquiry on for-profit higher education would serve multiple purposes as it:
(a) defines an issue or problem that is either unclear, complex, or embedded
in multiple systems; (b) identifies the range of the problem’s settings and the
participants, sectors, or stakeholders; (c) explores the factors associated with
the problem in order to understand and address them; and (d) helps with
designing measures that match the characteristics of the sector when existing
measures are not a good fit (Purcell-Gates, 2000). Moreover, as the scrutiny
of the for-profit sector intensifies, the necessity of research that informs grad-
uation and employment outcomes also becomes increasingly important
(Center for Responsible Lending, 2014; Zamani-Gallaher, 2004).

Ethnography, unlike other research methods, is also positioned to miti-
gate barriers to access in the study of for-profit colleges. Because proprietary

Iloh

434

institutions work to generate profit, the possibility of damaging reports of
their educational services, whether the institution is kept confidential or
not, may be considered too costly (Iloh & Tierney, 2014b). When provided
access, ethnography serves as a strategic tool to aptly and thoroughly inves-
tigate for-profit institutions through its emphasis on prolonged exploration
of discrete and isolated cases (Iloh & Tierney, 2014b). The goal of this study
was to unearth hidden elements, dynamics, and factors at Millennium
College, one type of for-profit institution embedded in an empirically under-
studied sector of postsecondary education.

Data and Method

The findings reported in this article are part of data collected during
a larger ethnographic account of social dynamics and processes that sur-
round students at one for-profit institution. I spent seven months investigat-
ing the culture of one midsize for-profit college in a suburban city in
California. Detailed field notes, participant observation, and in-depth inter-
views encompass the primary means of data collection. Due to heightened
confidentiality concerns, the site and all names associated were masked
throughout the study. Accordingly, the institution that was studied is referred
to in this text as Millennium College. Throughout data collection, all names
of students were recorded as pseudonyms they chose at the beginning of the
study. The ethnographic observations were ongoing for the entire seven
months. While engaged in this study, for-profit students were observed in
a multitude of settings, including their classrooms, the dining area, study
rooms, lounge, main office, counseling office, and off-campus grounds.
Because of the variety of instructional delivery offered at the for-profit col-
lege, students were also observed during day and evening courses, and
four students were shadowed throughout the course of taking an online gen-
eral education class. Three research questions framed the data collection
process:

Research Question 1: How do for-profit college students understand or perceive
the culture of their institution (particularly the academic, social, and physical
climate)?

Research Question 2: What types of interactions and experiences do students have
within the space of a for-profit college?

Research Question 3: What implications do these findings present for inquiry
regarding for-profit colleges and universities?

Millennium College

Millennium College is a proprietary institution of higher learning in
a suburban city in California (see Table 1). Millennium College from the out-
side appears to be one large multilevel office building, although the actual

Ethnography of a For-Profit College

435

parameters of the campus only encompass one floor of the building. During
the 2012–2013 school year, the student body was over 60% female and more
than 50% Latino (see Table 2).

Millennium College students are enrolled in one of four academic pro-
gram offerings: wellness, paralegal, design, and business. Students either
took classes during the day or in the evening. Of the 39 faculty that are

Table 1

Millennium College Institutional Characteristics

Institutional profile Private 2- to 4-year institution that offers

certificates and associate’s degrees

Average cost $32,000

Average student-to-faculty ratio 13:1

Length of program 13 months

Percentage completion rate

(within program duration)

65

Percentage job placement rate 30

Annual cohort size 194

Program enrollment Rolling admission

Note: This table reflects Integrated Postsecondary Educational Data System (IPEDS) data
and not direct information provided by institution.

Table 2

Millennium College 2013 Student Population Data (Reported From Institution)

N %

Female 170 62

Male 106 38

American Indian/Alaskan 1 0

Asian/Pacific Islander 26 9

Black/non-Hispanic 41 15

Latino 140 51

Other 22 8

Two or more races 8 3

White/non-Hispanic 38 14

\20 29 11
20–24 111 40

25–29 56 21

30–34 31 11

35–39 17 6

40–44 9 3

45–49 6 2

�50 17 6

Iloh

436

dispersed across the four program offerings, the majority are within the
wellness program—Millennium College’s most popular major. Some of
these faculty members also serve as instructors at other branch campuses
of the institution. The administrators at Millennium College are relatively
diverse in gender and race, although most admissions counselors were
Latino. It should be noted that the majority of the board of directors are
White men and women with the exception of two Asian institutional
leaders.

Entry to the Millennium College community was facilitated by several
factors: (a) the assistance of a top institutional leader who ultimately granted
access for the study, (b) meetings with the director of Student Affairs at
Millennium College to structure which participants would be sampled, and
(c) a tour given by an admissions counselor, identical to the tours presented
to prospective students. My status as a young Black woman with no prior
experience of being enrolled or immersed in a proprietary college also
played an increasingly important role in facilitating a productive research
exploration. Outside of staff, I was treated more like a student than an affil-
iated representative of Millennium College. This was evident in the multiple
instances where students inquired about what academic program I was
enrolled in or whether or not I was a new student. During one focus group,
students suggested, ‘‘You might as well be one of us.’’

Data Collection

The data collection for this study comprised of in-depth, semi-structured
interviews, student shadowing, institutional observations, and a small
amount of focus groups. I spent approximately three days a week at the
institution from 10 a.m. until 8 p.m. During the course of the study, 21 stu-
dents across the four academic majors (wellness, paralegal, design, and busi-
ness) were interviewed and/or shadowed before, during, and after class. The
21 students selected were a result of direct quota sampling (a nonprobability
sampling technique wherein the assembled sample has the same propor-
tions of individuals as the entire population). Accordingly, the collective par-
ticipant sample of students was consistent with the student population of
Millennium College (see Table 2) and developed with the assistance of the
director of Student Affairs. In addition to interviews, there were three focus
groups interspersed throughout Months 4, 5, and 6 of data collection. Two
focus groups consisted of groups of three students, and the last contained
two students. All participants were interviewed at least three times, and
75% were interviewed more than this. Throughout the course of data collec-
tion, no students dropped out of the study; however, because of individual
schedules, some were more available than others to be involved in inter-
viewing beyond the minimum requirements.

Ethnography of a For-Profit College

437

In-Depth Interviews and Focus Groups

Interviews and focus groups were utilized to gather a rich set of
accounts of the interviewee’s experiences, knowledge, ideas, and impres-
sions about their experience at Millennium College. Both the interview
and focus group protocol were developed using an open-ended approach.
After agreeing to participate, face-to-face interviews with the students were
conducted utilizing a semi-structured protocol, allowing participants to
diverge from narrow topics and to further explore additional concepts and
elements of their experience. In-person, semi-structured interviews as well
as focus groups lasting 45 minutes were used to ascertain student perspec-
tives of the for-profit college experience. Participants who were only able
to meet at certain times were grouped into the focus groups. The initial ques-
tion opening each individual interview was as follows: ‘‘What led you to this
institution?’’ Using audiotapes from interviews and focus groups, a verbatim
text was transcribed for each session.

Observations and Student Shadowing

Throughout the ethnographic investigation, I observed various areas of
the campus during regular class hours, including morning and evening
shifts. During observations of classrooms, particular attention was paid to
teaching and instruction, faculty-student interactions, and student-student
interactions. In common areas of the campus, I watched for interactions,
behaviors, and practices by students and around students. In addition to
general observations, the research process included shadowing a small sam-
ple of interviewed students throughout their day to observe the experiences
that further informed what was shared during interviews. On some days, I
would simply observe a student during the entire duration of one class. In
other cases, I would spend more time observing the student such that I
would begin the day with the student from their entrance into the institution,
follow them to their first class, and even follow them to the place they ate
lunch or studied. All clarifying questions pertaining to observations were
saved until the interview.

Limitations

In terms of the institutional sample, Millennium College represents only
a microcosm of the vast number of for-profit colleges in the country, and
representativeness is limited to institutions with a similar structure and
form of leadership. I was intentional in selecting an institution that captured
many of the complexities featured in the heterogeneous for-profit education
industry but acknowledge Millennium College only reflects a particular insti-
tutional structure. This study also mostly reflects the experiences of students
who physically attended class, even though some for-profit college students

Iloh

438

only take courses online. Further research can build on the present study
with more diverse samples of colleges and by utilizing different research
approaches.

Data Analysis

Data analysis was conducted simultaneously with data collection. The
analysis of the data included developing descriptive charts from observa-
tional data and transcription of the interviews and focus groups.
Frequently, insights gained from one data source were used to inform
another data source. The goal throughout the data collection process was
to find connections in what individual students said about their college
experience. This goal was met by using the constant comparative method,
in which any newly collected data are compared with previous data that
were collected (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003). Constant comparison is important
in developing a theory that is grounded in the data (Strauss & Corbin, 1998).
During the constant comparative method, theories are formed, enhanced,
confirmed, or even discounted as a result of any new data that emerge
from the study. This method was helpful for reviewing data from initial inter-
views and asking more pertinent follow-up questions during focus groups
and individual interviews.

Meaning units in this study were created through the process of reduc-
tion and elimination. During this portion, statements and observations were
coded and analyzed by asking: (a) Does this address an aspect of the
research questions? (b) Is the statement a necessary and significant constitu-
ent for understanding a research question? (c) Is it possible to abstract and
label it? Once labeled, these meaning units were clustered into common cat-
egories or themes, removing overlapping and repetitive statements, and then
clustered themes and meanings were used to develop textural and structural
descriptions (Moustakas, 1994). These steps were used to explore and iden-
tify relevant themes across various participants and observations in the
study. As common themes were compared and theoretical saturation was
reached—the point at which new data fit into existing categories—an image
of the student experience at Millennium College became clearer.

Establishing Trustworthy Data

Qualitative inquirers mindfully employ a variety of techniques to
increase the trustworthiness of their research. Trustworthiness concerns
the degree to which the researcher did everything possible to ensure that
data were appropriately and ethically collected, analyzed, and reported
(Carlson, 2010). Lincoln and Guba (1985) used four attributes: credibility,
transferability, dependability, and conformability to affirm the trustworthiness
of a naturalistic approach. For credibility, I worked from the same protocol to
ensure participants were given similar prompts to discuss their college

Ethnography of a For-Profit College

439

experience. Transferability is concerned with the degree to which the findings
can be applied to other settings (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Millennium College
was selected because of its multiple features encompassed across proprietary
institutions. For dependability, a code/recode procedure was conducted (the
data were coded and after a few months, recoded). Conformability is con-
cerned with the degree to which the findings are based on the condition of
the research (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Accordingly, an electronic audit trail
of all research documents was developed. This audit trail included interview
journals, audiotapes, and verbatim transcripts.

Triangulation

Triangulation was particularly complementary to the constant comparative
method. Triangulation of different data sources (e.g., interview and observa-
tions) was used as a means of enhancing credibility and safeguarding against
researcher bias (Denzin, 1978; Patton, 2002). Emphasis was placed on develop-
ing a converging line of inquiry based on ‘‘multiple forms of evidence rather
than a single incident or data point in the study’’ (Creswell & Miller, 2000, p.
27). Triangulation was used not just as a tactic at the end of data collection,
but more as a strategy to build a chain of evidence while still in the process
of data collection. Relevant observations and shadowing experiences (e.g.,
attending class meetings, sitting in the computer lab, eating in the dining area)
were combined with interview data to amplify the meaning of the findings.

Thick Description

Thick and rich description provides detailed accounts of settings, partici-
pants, data collection, and analysis procedures as a way of making research-
ers’ accounts more credible—to show that they were diligent in their attempts
to conduct respectable research (Anfara, Brown, & Mangione, 2002).
Particular types of note taking were especially useful in achieving thick
description within the context of this study. Notes were divided into four sub-
types: field notes, personal notes, methodological notes, and theoretical notes.
In basic field notes, I recorded details of interactions during an interview or
focus group session. Personal notes regarding experience of the interview ses-
sions were helpful for reconstructing reactions to the space. Methodological
notes were used as running commentary on the mechanics of the data collec-
tion process, including interactional techniques and useful tactics for eliciting
elaborate responses. Theoretical notes were utilized to identify themes or pat-
terns across multiple interviews as data collection progressed.

Reciprocity

In order to ensure that the data collected were utilized to improve insti-
tutional effectiveness, research findings were disseminated to Millennium

Iloh

440

College. All student participants were informed prior to participation that
major themes would be presented to institutional leaders but no identifying
information would be reported. Two presentations were given to
Millennium College’s institutional leaders, the first to five administrators
and one dean at the physical campus location and the second to a board
of directors that oversees the institution during a Chancellor’s Cabinet meet-
ing. The main themes from the research study were shared with administra-
tors and leaders as well as a set of recommendations that could be used to
potentially reform the student experience. In this way, reciprocity was not
just an act of gratitude to Millennium College; it became an initiative that
ensured the institution could improve because of the research efforts.

Findings

The goal of this study was to understand how students constructed their
experience through the academic, institutional, and social settings of
Millennium College. Particular emphasis was placed on how students inter-
acted with their classmates, faculty, and administrators. In the sections that
follow, I detail four relevant and recurring themes throughout data collec-
tion. Such findings are organized and illustrated with quotes from student
participants during individual semi-structured interviews, observations
from the institutional site, and experiences while shadowing students.

‘‘Just Keep It Real With Us’’: The Necessity of Transparency and

Communication

In this theme, students voiced concerns regarding the manner and fre-
quency to which Millennium College communicated important matters to
the student body. One particular incident seemed to typify the frustrations
reflected in this theme. The event happened prior to the beginning of data
collection but became a point of tension revealed in over eight individual
interviews with students. A 22-year-old Latina participant was first to men-
tion this problem:

Over a three-month period at [Millennium College] we waited to hear
about whether we received accreditation from [accrediting body in
the state]. The staff told us we would be notified at a certain time.
When that date came they did not tell us squat. They just didn’t say
anything. Pretty clear we did not get it but not telling us is sketchy.

As I held more interviews, the pieces of the story began to come
together organically. One 41-year-old White male student in the business
program shared this regarding the incident: ‘‘They decided to have a big
meeting because the tension was so stiff you could cut it with a knife.
And the meeting did nothing.’’

Ethnography of a For-Profit College

441

A 24-year-old Black woman in the wellness program also reflected on
this meeting:

You can tell when someone is giving you an answer to sugar coat
something. When we got out of the bogus meeting, we all were basi-
cally like ‘‘yeah they just totally avoided it.’’ For many students that
was a major frustration. You can’t ask us to get involved in accredita-
tion and then when it comes down to it you say nothing.

A Latino male student ambassador in his mid-20s said this on the matter:
‘‘I mean they didn’t tell us anything. It was hard for me because as a student
ambassador other students are asking me questions and I have no answers.’’

Over the next few months, students remained confused and described
feeling ‘‘blown off’’ by administrators who did not provide answers. A 29-
year-old Latina female stated:

If they didn’t know, they just could have kept it real. I mean, they
emphasize family and us communicating with them, and we want
the same thing too. We just want to know what is going on with
our education. I felt ignored and that’s not right.

For more than half of the students who discussed this issue, the accred-
itation communication was the biggest problem they would change about
Millennium College. The following two students described the accreditation
communication as one of the most paramount problems in their education
experience. One White female student in her mid-20s shared:

The one thing I would change here would be communication. I mean
I don’t like to gossip or you know . . . talk . . . but at a recent meeting
we discussed how classes have gone with the new students coming
in. They asked just like you are doing . . . ‘‘Anything ever bothered
you?’’ Hands down a major complaint, besides finances, was that
this accreditation system just was not handled right. We all knew
the accreditors were coming. They asked us to be involved, wear
our uniforms, all that stuff. People started asking other students
and faculty what happened. No one would answer.

A 25-year-old mixed-race (Latina and White) female student had this to
say while reflecting on the aftermath of the accreditation situation:

Now there is all this baggage and all these rumors. It affects this school
now, ya know? I can promise you this because I have heard it . . . peo-
ple are telling the new students. All those future students are being
affected by it and changing their mind about coming. So if you are
going to involve us, follow through. I mean this is our education.

In addition to this incident, there was an internship/scholarship the insti-
tution advertised, particularly to those in the paralegal program. Three

Iloh

442

participants claimed they even factored this scholarship into their financial
aid. A 31-year-old White female student first shared this event:

I later find out that this supposed scholarship was no longer offered.
We are paying all this money and in the middle of the way through
you just cancel it? I talked to financial aid counselors and everything
was set. Now this opportunity is no longer available.

Another White female in her mid-30s reflected,

Yeah that whole scholarship thingy-ma jig. . . . Major problem. I mean
we all take money seriously and this was not dealt with correctly. I
don’t understand how not sharing this information or not even talk-
ing to students is appropriate.

In talking to administrators about this particular opportunity, they said the
scholarship is still available, but the stipulations have changed. Dynamics such
as these highlight how the necessity of more transparency shaped student
experiences and perceptions of Millennium College. The next theme high-
lights students’ more positive outlook toward in-person instruction.

‘‘Class Time Is a Great Time’’: High-Quality In-Person Instruction

Every student interviewed raved about the quality of in-person teaching
given across the four areas of study. Through observation, it was apparent
that many of the faculty had close connections to students. Moreover,
most classes used a hands-on style of teaching and learning, where each pro-
fessor knew the students’ names and would often provide one-on-one
instruction during demonstrations and exercises.

There were also multiple observations where students would form hud-
dles with the instructors. Before, after, and during class, students would can-
didly and informally discuss their educational needs. On one occasion, I
observed during a break in a massage therapy class, a group of five students
(one White male, three Latina females, and one Black woman) huddled
around a Black female instructor. One Latina female student said, ‘‘For this
test coming up . . . I’m not sure if I will do as well as I know I can. It’s not
the class, it’s just stuff has been crazy with my kid. How can I get up to speed?’’
The instructor turns from writing on the whiteboard, smiles, and responds
‘‘Yeah, I planned to do a review next class for anyone who needs it after-
ward.’’ Once she made this statement, all five began to let out a sigh of relief
while three even hugged her. The instructor smiled and laughed saying,
‘‘Okay, okay! Be cool everyone!’’ One of the huddled students replied,
‘‘Thanks so much for this. I am going to make you so proud!’’

One 25-year-old Latina woman discussed how contemporary issues
were brought into the class and also the ways in which instructors connected
students with opportunities:

Ethnography of a For-Profit College

443

The application we get is great. A guy had an injury during March
Madness and we discussed it in my sports wellness class. It helped
knowing that what we were learning applies to fields that people
want to go into. I actually already have a job lined up because I
got put on by one of my instructors. I came to a massage networking
event. They asked me to come interview and I got the position. I am
thankful for how the teachers try to provide opportunities that can
work out if you put in the work.

Some students discussed how not only was the teaching effective; it was
well aligned with the subject matter. One Black male student in his mid-30s
shared:

They don’t just tell you everything. They really want you to learn it
for yourself. A part of the success here is that it is a match. In the well-
ness program you have people here that are natural givers and want
to care for people. That comes out in the classroom, and the teachers
really work to bring that out through class activities.

In other cases, the impact of students’ learning and engagement became
evident in interviews. One 24-year-old Latina female, who went by Mia, had
the following to say at the end of an individual interview:

Constance, can I ask you something?
Sure?
Why do you sit like that? The way you sit . . . I mean it’s like you are hunched
over. It doesn’t look good especially for you to be so young and tall.
Oh, I didn’t notice that.

She then replied:

Since being here [at Millennium College], it’s all I do. I analyze peo-
ple; how they move, and possible health consequences. I watch you
in our interviews. When you hunch over, your body constricts and it
can’t get all the air it needs to function. Over time, this is going to
decrease the quality of your health. Our teachers here, they remind
us that while we can make money, we can also change people’s lives
every day for the better. So, with that said, I think you need me to
help you with your bad sitting posture.

All students taking online general education classes expressed various
degrees of concern with the utility of these courses, and some even made
comparison to the more effective in-person courses.

One Black male in the paralegal program shared, ‘‘I would much rather
be in class than taking these general education online classes. Just boring
and unnecessary if you ask me. I could do without them. But when I have
a teacher in front of me that cares, it’s great.’’

Iloh

444

When inquiring if I could shadow one student as she completed an
online class activity, the Latina student in her mid-20s said:

You want to shadow me while I am taking an online class? Prepare to
take a nap. This is not fun. The interface is boring. These assignments
are boring. And I am performing the worst in these classes. Now, when
we are in my real classes with my instructors . . . that is the good stuff!

This theme illustrates the ways in which teaching was viewed positively
at Millennium College, with the exception of online education courses. This
particular theme underscores the profound impact that in-class instruction
had on the student experience at Millennium College. The following section
discusses the variability of student perceptions and experiences based on
student needs and course schedules.

‘‘It Really Depends’’: Varied Experiences Based on Class Schedule and

Student Needs

Within this theme, some of the nuances of student experience are illus-
trated based on when students took classes at Millennium College and their
educational needs. Through several observations, it is noted there were dif-
ferences in the amount of social activities held for day and evening students,
with day students receiving more academic and social functions. On one
particular occasion, a pizza party was supposed to be held for both day
and evening students during specific times. During lunch time, there was
pizza readily available for day students. Later in the evening as evening stu-
dents arrived, many looked for pizza, but none was delivered.

One male evening student shared, ‘‘I rushed in traffic just to make sure I
got pizza. Where is it?’’ Another group of three young women in the wellness
program were overheard talking among themselves, ‘‘Wow. . . . Now we
actually have to rush and get dinner before class. . . . I don’t feel like walk-
ing.’’ In response to some of the initial reporting of these differences in fre-
quency and quality of sponsored activities, one administrator stated, ‘‘Many
evening students are disinterested in these activities, but get mad when we
hold them for day students.’’

Another issue, noted by evening students, was the frequent tardiness of
their classmates. Several students felt that late start times ultimately impacted
the duration and quality of class time as many evening courses would start
on average 10 to 30 minutes behind the official class start time, a window in
which half the students in the class would arrive. Through observations, it
was noted that paralegal evening classes never started on time, and on
most occasions, 30 minutes would elapse before class started.

A 35-year-old Latina female student stated in an individual interview:

I paid to start class on time. I understand other people work and yes
there is traffic but it’s like any other school. Come to class on time and

Ethnography of a For-Profit College

445

be prepared. It is even more annoying when people come in late and
they aren’t prepared.

Day students seemed to receive the bulk of institutional support, partic-
ularly those pertaining to technological, tutoring, and advising services.
Consequently, these resources decreased heavily as evening courses began.
One White female participant in her late 30s shared:

If you just watch, you will notice they don’t provide the same resour-
ces for the night students as they do the day students. I mean, just
look at the Wi-Fi situation. I mean, you can’t even log on and, for
some of the classes, you need it for class activities. They don’t even
have a staff person here that can help with just turning on Internet
after hours. It is really a problem. I mean [pointing to my laptop]
try and log on for yourself right now and see.

Some students also discussed the ways in which diverse academic needs
were not addressed in the school environment. In particular, self-reported
high-achieving students said that often their academic needs were left unat-
tended. A paralegal female student mentioned:

It’s beyond problematic. Most of the resources here are for students
who are doing poorly. If I miss one day of class, they are always call-
ing. But I am a student that does well. There is not one single quiet
place anyone can go to study. The computer lab/library is basically
a nonstop social hour. The dining area . . . yeah no one does work
there. They [referring to Millennium College] will basically stalk stu-
dents who don’t come to class but don’t do much for the students
who are doing well.

A 51-year-old White woman in the paralegal program similarly echoed:

I would just like a quiet place to study. I can’t always complete work
at home because I work part-time. I wish there were more accommo-
dations for students performing well. I would not describe the cam-
pus overall as a good study environment. This is a school, and it
should not be this way.

These data demonstrate the variability of student experiences and per-
ceptions based on academic schedule and student needs. For some students,
observations of different treatment greatly impacted their perceptions in
unfavorable ways. The next theme focuses on the interpersonal dynamics
between students based on age and maturity level.

‘‘Just Grow Up’’: A Need for Maturity Among Classmates

‘‘We’re not in high school anymore.’’ This statement echoed by at least
three participants illustrates an expectation regarding the level of maturity
that many students believed should be displayed by classmates at

Iloh

446

Millennium College. Overall, age seemed to mediate most classroom divi-
sions and appeared to be a more salient student identity than others, such
as race and gender, which were almost never discussed even when promp-
ted through interview questions. Guided by Silber and Fisher (2005), youn-
ger students were considered age 24 and under while the remaining were
classified as older. And while many students addressed age, they held vary-
ing perspectives on what it meant to them in creating a successful classroom
environment.

One student even switched to take evening courses because he could
‘‘not handle the immature and high school mentality’’ of his peers in the
day classes. This 26-year-old Latino male shared:

Yeah, I used to date a girl in the day class cohort. At first it was cool
but when our relationship faced drama she started spreading rumors.
I confronted her and eventually broke up with her. She got even
more bitter and now her crew is gossiping. Her and her friends in
the class were all immature. It’s not just because we were dating,
there are a lot of students here that really are not mature enough
to be in a college classroom. I went to the front office and requested
to be switched to evening classes. Since then I have had no drama. It
is just a different vibe and people overall are just more serious about
their work.

One 21-year-old White female student shared that older students are
often rude and dismissive to younger students:

Honestly, all the issues I have ever had have been with older stu-
dents. One older lady kept telling me to quiet down. Every time I
talked in class it was, ‘‘Shhhhh’’ from her when I would talk to my
friends. In my head I am thinking, ‘‘Bitch, what is your problem?’’
She really seemed to have something against me. We have had words
and now we just don’t talk at all. I really think there is potential for us
to go at it again. There was an older guy I had drama with, but we just
squashed it. He is kinda like a big brother now.

While this younger student also attested to feeling better understood by
students her age, other students stated that as long as their classmates
behaved in a mature manner, they hoped for peaceful classroom and group
work relations.

One 24-year-old Black male shared in a focus group interview:

If people knew how hard I worked to get here, they would under-
stand why I have no time for age drama. My grandparents raised
me so I have always had respect and gotten along with older people.
I do see that there are tensions with age though.

Some students, while cognizant of the conflicts that may arise due to age
differences in the classroom, believed that ultimately this environment

Ethnography of a For-Profit College

447

provides an important developmental space. One Black female, who affec-
tionately wanted to be called Blue, shared in a personal interview:

At Cal States you kind of just show up and you don’t have to interact.
Because of the way classes are set up here [at Millennium College]
you end up talking to people of different ages and backgrounds.
The group work demands you be mature. You basically are forced
to grow up because you are surrounded by people you would not
normally hang out with but have to work with. In the work field
you will fail if you decide to stay in your bubble. Even though there
may be age-related problems, it’s needed because this is reality.

This last theme highlights the complicated nature of student interactions
based on age and maturity. While for some students this was not a significant
challenge, for others, it visibly impacted their educational experience.

Discussion

Depending on one’s imagination or opinion, the image of a for-profit
college may resemble anything from a proprietary predator to an innovative
leader in higher education. The insights and observations of this study reveal
a portrait of a for-profit college whose culture transcends the extreme depic-
tions used to describe the industry. The four themes presented are much
more complex than dichotomies of ‘‘good’’ and ‘‘bad’’ and illustrate that
Millennium College, much like many postsecondary institutions, has some
areas of strength and many opportunities for improvement. The findings illu-
minate: (a) student desire for institutional communication and transparency,
(b) the perception of high-quality instruction, (c) varied experiences based
on student learning needs and schedule, and (d) the role of age and maturity
in shaping student interactions. While the first two themes emphasize the
value of educational processes rather than just products, the last two themes
underscore the significance and nuances of micro-level understanding of the
for-profit sector.

The Importance of the Process and Not Just the Product

While the for-profit college industry may be known for delivering a cer-
tain type of educational product, observations and interviews revealed that
the process of delivering such an education is just as important for students.
Previous research asserts that for-profit institutions tend to view processes
such as accreditation and instruction as a business objective, determining
what it will take to meet or exceed accreditation expectations (Ruch,
2001). And while this straightforward strategy is often described as effective
for for-profit institutions, this study highlights that business objectives
become complicated when student experiences are considered.

Iloh

448

Ethnography in this study provided a close-up view of how complex pro-
cesses and delivery of educational objectives impact students.

For many of the students, the failure of Millennium College to keep them
informed regarding ‘‘something as important as accreditation’’ and other
opportunities raised concerns and complaints about institutional communi-
cation efforts. In this way, accreditation was not just an objective that was not
met at a particular time, it was a missed opportunity to inform students about
a process and matter students deemed extremely important to the quality
and outcome of their educational experience. Recall the student who shared,
‘‘We just want to know what is going on with our education.’’ And while stu-
dents were clear that they may not have held these expectations from public
institutions they attended prior to enrolling in Millennium College, the price,
promise of a career, and perceived customer focus led them to believe that
consistent communication and transparency regarding important matters
was warranted. This study also highlights how it was not enough for stu-
dents to receive some type of education and training as it was also very
important how the training was delivered. Students across various areas of
study upheld the importance of quality in-class instruction to their personal
and career development. This might suggest that research on for-profit post-
secondary education evolve from a ‘‘product-informed’’ view of its culture to
one that positions culture as the co-creation of students and the institution,
where processes are of particular importance.

The Nuances of Micro-Level Understanding

Some of the previous research on for-profit colleges describes their
unique value proposition and argues nonprofit higher education institutions
lose their share of students to for-profit colleges because they are ill equip-
ped to deal with the changes taking place in the higher education market
(Bailey, Badway, & Gumport, 2003; Cook & Fennell, 2001). These changes
often include innovation, technology, as well as serving diverse consumer
populations in the higher education market. This study highlights that
macro-level assertions of the for-profit industry may not always be compat-
ible with the lived experience and needs of students. What does innovation
and technology really trickle down to at the local institutional level? While
the small sample of students interviewed that were in online classes felt
that these courses were cumbersome, all interviewed students described
their on-campus classes as phenomenal experiences. Perhaps having 21st-
century facilities and educational products means relatively little when
most students just want institutional transparency, fully-functional Wi-Fi to
complete coursework, and instructors who care and will prepare them for
a successful career.

This study further revealed that students’ experiences of the institutional
environment were informed by perceptions of the treatment their peers

Ethnography of a For-Profit College

449

received. When some students noticed what appeared to be ‘‘preferential
treatment’’ and better conditions to other students, it made them feel as
though they were not getting ‘‘their money’s worth’’ and, in some cases,
less prepared for the job market. This was not a phenomenon only common
to evening students, who felt that institutional resources were lacking during
their class time. Some self-reporting high-performing students stated that
almost too many resources were allocated to students that were on the verge
of dropping out or underperforming. The student that shared, ‘‘It’s beyond
problematic. Most of the resources here are for students who are doing
poorly,’’ typifies this sentiment. Other students addressed that there are base-
line institutional resources that need to be provided to all students. In these
cases, micro-level understanding allowed for examination of the ways in
which institutional resource allocation shaped student experiences. It may
be important to ensure that institutional offerings and practices are as com-
parable as possible, especially as prospective employment and cost of atten-
dance is at the forefront of many students’ concerns.

This exploration also highlights what might happen when students are
immersed in mixed-age college classroom environments. Whereas some stu-
dents pointed out that these conflicts could be lessened by institutional prac-
tices, other students believed that such tensions were just a natural extension
of the working environment they have been in or would soon be navigating.
Recall the student that stated, ‘‘Because of the way classes are set up here
you end up talking to people of different ages and backgrounds. . . . In
the work field, you will fail if you decide to stay in your bubble.’’ Without
closer examination, such tensions and inner thoughts might not be as readily
discerned in understanding the for-profit college on-campus student experi-
ence. Whether Millennium College chooses to address these concerns, these
dynamics remain important points of discussion for for-profit postsecondary
education research and other institutions of higher learning that educate
more of the adult learner population.

Conclusion

This article began by positioning for-profit colleges as one of the most
controversial and least understood sectors of higher education. This study
was developed with the intent to address gaps in the empirical scholarship
on for-profit higher education generally and the culture, climate, and student
experiences at these institutions specifically. The findings highlight how with
more dedicated attention to their internal environment, for-profit colleges
will continue to relay vital information about the condition and direction
of 21st-century higher education.

Studies of institutional culture from the student perspective often reflect
the student experience; however, this study also highlights how culture can
be informed by how students negotiate and understand their education as

Iloh

450

a type of service. Factors such as ‘‘lack of communication’’ were not neces-
sarily just elements of the lived experience of students, but perceptions
indicative of the quality of the educational product. Through an interpretive
framework, institutional culture was informed by both student experiences
and the ways in which students constantly evaluated the institution for its
utility, benefits, and shortcomings.

Current literature on for-profit higher education illustrates a command of
macro-level forces, such as innovation, privatization, and corporatization,
that have given rise to the for-profit postsecondary industry. Such focus
has been at the expense of micro-level meaning, which has been given
much less consideration in the current discourse on for-profit higher educa-
tion. This article demonstrates how an ethnographic study reveals the signif-
icance of meaning and processes at the individual institution and student
levels and how some of these factors even counter current macro-level con-
ceptions of the for-profit education culture and industry. Moving forward,
comparative ethnographic studies that examine for-profit colleges and uni-
versities along with other institutional settings can serve as useful next steps
following this study. Ultimately, this study positions the for-profit college as
more than just a postsecondary education movement but as a complex edu-
cational space profoundly shaping student experiences.

References

Agar, M. H. (1980). The professional stranger: An informal introduction to ethnogra-
phy. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Anfara, V. A., Brown, K. M., & Mangione, T. L. (2002). Qualitative research on stage:
Making the research process more public. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 28–38.

Atkinson, P., Delamont, S., Coffey, A., Lofland, J., & Lofland, L. (2001). Handbook of
ethnography. London: SAGE.

Bailey, T., Badway, N., & Gumport, P. J. (2003). For-profit higher education and com-
munity colleges. Stanford, CA: National Center for Postsecondary Improvement.

Bennett, D. L., Lucchesi, A. R., & Vedder, R. K. (2010). For-profit higher education:
Growth, innovation, and regulation. Washington, DC: Center for College
Affordability and Productivity.

Berg, G. A. (2005). Lessons from the edge: For-profit and nontraditional higher edu-
cation in America. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2003). Qualitative research for education: An intro-
duction to theories and methods (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education
Group, Inc.

Breneman, D. W., Pusser, B., & Turner, S. E. (2006). Earnings from learning: The rise
of for-profit universities. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Brewer, J. (2000). Ethnography. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Carlson, J. A. (2010). Avoiding traps in member checking. The Qualitative Report,

15(5), 1102–1113. Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR15-5/
carlson

Cellini, S. R. (2012). For-profit higher education: An assessment of costs and benefits.
National Tax Journal, 65(1), 153–180.

Ethnography of a For-Profit College

451

http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR15-5/carlson

Center for Responsible Lending. (2014). Do students of color profit from for-profit col-
lege? Poor outcomes and high debt hamper attendees’ futures. Retrieved from
http://www.responsiblelending.org/student-loans/research-policy/CRL-For-Profit-
Univ-FINAL

Chao, E. L., DeRocco, E. S., & Flynn, M. (2007). Adult learners in higher education:
Barriers to success and strategies to improve results. Washington, DC:
Employment and Training Administration. Retrieved from http://wdr.doleta
.gov/research/FullText_Documents/Adult%20Learners%20in%20Higher%20Edu
cation1

Chung, A. (2009). For-profit student heterogeneity (Munich Personal RePEC Archive
Paper No. 18967). Retrieved from https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/18967/1/

Chung, A. (2012). The choice of for-profit college. Economics of Education Review,
31(6), 1084–1101.

Cook, R., & Fennell, M. (2001). Capital gains: Surviving in an increasingly for-profit-
world. The Presidency, 4(1), 28–33.

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry.
Theory Into Practice, 39, 124–130.

Dahlke, S., Hall, W., & Phinney, A. (2015). Maximizing theoretical contributions of
participant observation while managing challenges. Qualitative Health
Research, 25, 1117–1122.

Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of cor-
porate life. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing.

Deming, D., Goldin, C., & Katz, L. F. (2012). The for-profit postsecondary school sec-
tor: Nimble critters or agile predators? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(1),
139–164.

Denzin, N. K. (Ed.). (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociolog-
ical methods. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Elliott, R., Fischer, C. T., & Rennie, D. L. (1999). Evolving guidelines for publication of
qualitative research studies in psychology and related fields. British Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 38, 215–299.

Ellis, C., Adams, T., & Bochner, A. (2011). Autoethnography: An overview. Historical
Social Research / Historische Sozialforschung, 36(4), 273–290.

Erickson, F. (1984). What makes school ethnography ‘‘ethnographic:? Anthropology
and Education Quarterly, 15, 51–66.

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Gilpin, G., Saunders, J., & Stoddard, C. (2015). Why has for-profit colleges’ share of

higher education expanded so rapidly? Estimating the responsiveness to labor
market changes. Economics of Education Review, 45, 53–63.

Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (2007). Ethnography: Principles in practice (3rd ed.).
London: Routledge.

Harper, S. R. (2007). Using qualitative methods to assess student trajectories and col-
lege impact. In S. R. Harper & S. D. Museus (Eds.), Using qualitative methods in
institutional assessment. New directions for institutional research (No. 136, pp.
55–68). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Health, Education, Labor and Pensions [HELP] Committee. (2012). For profit higher
education: The failure to safeguard the federal investment and ensure student
success. Washington, DC: U.S. Senate. Retrieved from http://www.help.senate
.gov/imo/media/for_profit_report/PartI

Heller, D. E. (2011). The impact of gainful employment regulations. Change: The
Magazine of Higher Learning, 43(5), 58–64.

Iloh

452

http://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/for_profit_report/PartI

http://wdr.doleta.gov/research/FullText_Documents/Adult%20Learners%20in%20Higher%20Education1

Hentschke, G. C. (2011). Innovations in business models and organizational cultures:
The for-profit sector. In B. Wildavsky, A. Kelly, & K. Carey (Eds.), Reinventing
higher education: The promise of innovation (pp. 159–196). Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.

Iloh, C. (2014). A critical comparison of website marketing at for-profit colleges &
community colleges. National Association of Student Affairs Professionals
Journal, 15(2), 91–106.

Iloh, C. (in press). Mo money, mo problems? The rise and reform of for-profit higher
education and implications for marginalized students. In J. T Minor & T. Jones
(Eds.), Race and education policy. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Iloh, C., & Tierney, W. G. (2013). A comparison of for-profit and community colleges’
admissions practices. College and University, 88(4), 2–12.

Iloh, C., & Tierney, W. G. (2014a). Understanding for-profit college and community
college choice through rational choice. Teachers College Record, 116(8), 1–34.

Iloh, C., & Tierney, W. G. (2014b). Using ethnography to understand twenty-first cen-
tury college life. Human Affairs, 24(1), 20–39.

Iloh, C., & Toldson, I. A. (2013). Black students in 21st century higher education: A
closer look at the role of for-profit colleges and community colleges. Journal
of Negro Education, 82(3), 205–212.

Institute for Higher Education Policy. (2010). A snapshot of African Americans in
higher education. Washington, DC: Institute for Higher Education Policy.

Institute for Higher Education Policy. (2011). Initial college attendance of low-income
adults. Washington, DC: Institute for Higher Education Policy.

Jung, S. M. (1980). Proprietary vocational education. Retrieved from http://eric
.ed.gov/?id=ED186760.

Kelly, K. F. (2001). Meeting needs and making profits: The rise of for-profit degree-
granting institutions (ECS Issue Paper). Denver, CO: Economic Commission
of the States.

Kinser, K. (2006). From main street to Wall Street: The transformation of for-profit
higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Kirkham, C. (2015, April 28). Students left hanging after Corinthian closes remaining
campuses. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/business/
la-fi-corinthian-students-20150429-story.html

Knapp, L. G., Kelly-Reid, J. E., & Ginder, S. A. (2011). Enrollment in postsecondary
institutions, fall 2009; graduation rates, 2003 & 2006 cohorts; and financial
statistics, fiscal year 2009. Washington, DC: US Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics.

Kuh, G. D., & Arnold, J. C. (1993). Liquid bonding: A cultural analysis of the role of
alcohol in fraternity pledgeship. Journal of College Student Development, 34,
327–334.

Kuh, G. D., & Whitt, E. J. (1988). The invisible tapestry: Culture in American colleges
and universities (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, No. 1). Washington, DC:
ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education.

Lechuga, V. M. (2006). The changing landscape of the academic profession: The cul-
ture of faculty at for-profit colleges and universities. New York, NY: Routledge.

Lechuga, V. M. (2008). Assessment, knowledge, and customer service: Contextualizing
faculty work at for-profit colleges and universities. The Review of Higher
Education, 31(3), 287–307. doi: 10.1353/rhe.2008.0004

Lechuga, V. M., & Hentschke, G. C. (2003). Expanding the horizon: For-profit degree
granting institutions in higher education: An annotated bibliography. Los
Angeles, CA: Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis. Retrieved from
http://www.usc.edu/dept/chepa/pdf/Annotated_bib

Ethnography of a For-Profit College

453

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-corinthian-students-20150429-story.html

http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED186760

Levine, A., & Cureton, S. (1998). When hope and fear collide: A portrait of today’ col-
lege student. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lichterman, P. (2015). Interpretive reflexivity in ethnography. Ethnography, 1–11.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Mayotte, B. (2015, July 8). What the new gainful employment rule means for stu-

dents. U.S News. Retrieved from http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/stu
dent-loan-ranger/2015/07/08/what-the-new-gainful-employment-rule-means-for-
college-students

Moffatt, M. (1989). Coming of age in New Jersey: College and American culture. New
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.

Nathan, R. (2005). My freshman year: What a professor learned by becoming a stu-
dent. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2006). Digest of education statistics, 2001.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). IPEDS data center. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/

National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. (2013). Term enrollment estimates
fall 2013. Retrieved from http://nscresearchcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/
CurrentTermEnrollment-Fall2013

Oseguera, L., Kimball, E., & Hwang, J. (2011). Low-income students’ predictors of for-
profit versus not-for-profit college and university enrollment. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education,
Indianapolis, IN.

Oseguera, L., & Malagan, M. C. (2011). For-profit colleges and universities and the
Latina/o students who enroll in them. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education,
10(1), 66–91.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Public Agenda. (2014). Profiting higher education? What students, alumni, and
employers think about for-profit colleges. Retrieved from http://www.publica
genda.org/files/ProfitingHigherEducation_PublicAgenda_2014

Purcell-Gates, V. (2000). The role of qualitative and ethnographic research in educa-
tional policy. Reading Online, 4(1). Retrieved from http://www.readingonline
.org/articles/purcell-gates/

Ray, R., & Rosow, J. A. (2012). Two different worlds of Black and White fraternity
men: Visibility and accountability as mechanisms of privilege. Journal of
Contemporary Ethnography, 41(1), 66–95.

Rosenbaum, J. E., Deil-Amen, R., & Person, A. E. (2006). After admission: From col-
lege access to college success. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Ruch, R. S. (2001). Higher Ed, Inc.: The rise of the for-profit university. Baltimore, MD:
Johns Hopkins University Press.

Schneider, M. (2014). Are graduates from public universities gainfully employed?
Analyzing student loan debt and gainful employment. Washington, DC:
American Enterprise Institute.

Schwartz, P., & Lever, J. (1976). Fear and loathing at the college mixer. Urban Life, 4,
413–431.

Shireman, R. (2015). The covert for-profit: How college owners escape oversight
through a regulatory blind spot. Washington, DC: The Century Foundation.

Silber, J., & Fisher, A. (2005). Education and training. New York, NY: Harris Nesbitt.

Iloh

454

http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/student-loan-ranger/2015/07/08/what-the-new-gainful-employment-rule-means-forcollege-students

http://www.publicagenda.org/files/ProfitingHigherEducation_PublicAgenda_2014

http://www.readingonline.org/articles/purcell-gates/

http://nscresearchcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/CurrentTermEnrollment-Fall2013

Soares, L. (2013). Post-traditional learners and the transformation of postsecondary
education: A manifesto for college leaders. Washington, DC: American Council
on Education.

Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant observation. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and proce-
dures for developing grounded theory. London: Sage.

Terre Blanche, M., & Kelly, K. (1999). Interpretive methods. In M. Terre Blanche &
K. Durrheim (Eds.), Research in practice: Applied methods for the social sciences
(pp. 123–172). Cape Town: University of Cape Town Press.

Van Der Werf, M., & Sabatier, G. (2009). The college of 2020: Students. Washington,
DC: Chronicle Research Services, Inc.

Walford, G. (2008). How to do educational ethnography. London: Tufnell.
Zaharlick, A. (1992). Ethnography in anthropology and its value for education.

Theory Into Practice, 31(2), 116–125.
Zamani-Gallaher, E. M. (2004). Proprietary schools: Beyond the issue of profit. New

Directions for Institutional Research, 124, 63–79.

Manuscript received May 6, 2015
Final revision received October 10, 2015

Accepted October 20, 2015

Ethnography of a For-Profit College
455