For-Profit Education vs. Non-Profit Education

for-Profit Education vs. Non-Profit Education

RESEARCH on for-PROFIT SCHOOLS and UNIVERSITIES

RESEARCH on NON-PROFIT PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES

GLOBAL EDUCATIONAL STATUS

SAMPLING

SAMPLIING FRAME

METHOD of SELECTING the SAMPLE ELEMENTS

SCALE DEVELOPMENT

DEPENDENT VARIABLE

INDEPENDENT VARIABLE

RELIABILITY and VALIDITY of the RESULTS

ETHICAL ISSUES

Opinion of students in for-profit institutions

Quite Agree

Quite Disagree

I believe that my education has helped me in recognizing and acting on my civic responsibilities towards my society and country

I believe that the government needs to increase the total financial aid expenditure allocated for education without decreasing the percentage of funds assigned to non-profit institutions

I believe that my choice to study in a for-profit institute will help me get a higher pay scale and widen my work spectrum

I believe that my education has helped me become more creative, confident and skilled

5- I believe that public universities are not focused towards delivering common good and increasing the standard of overall education and instead are focusing on increasing their profits

6- I believe that both forms of educational setups have a biased and unfair selection criterion

7- I am satisfied with the academic courses and teaching standards at my institute

Table 2: Opinion of students in Non-profit institutions Questions

Statements

Quite Agree

Quite Disagree

1- I believe that my education has helped me in recognizing and acting on my civic responsibilities towards my society and country

2- I believe that the government needs to increase the total financial aid expenditure allocated for education without decreasing the percentage of funds assigned to non-profit institutions

3- I believe that my choice to study in a for-profit institute will help me get a higher pay scale and widen my work spectrum

4- I believe that my education has helped me become more creative, confident and skilled

5- I believe that public universities are not focused towards delivering common good and increasing the standard of overall education and instead are focusing on increasing their profits

6- I believe that both forms of educational setups have a biased and unfair selection criterion

7- I am satisfied with the academic courses and teaching standards at my institute

Chapter 1

Executive Summary

The purpose of this study was to reveal the point-of-view of students about current educational issues related to for-profit and non-profit educational institutions. A number of hypotheses have been offered to explain the growth and development of educational systems. In this study, seven variables, which have been at the vanguard of educational concerns, were tested: (1) Civic contributions of students; (2) Financial proportion of the for-profit and non-profit educational institution; (3) Standard of Job opportunities after Graduation; (4) Aims and objectives behind for-profit Educational institution; (5) Aims and objectives behind non-profit Educational institution; (6) Criterion of Admission (7) Education Standards. 400 students participated in this study, which were divided into 2 groups; the first group consisted of 200 from Boston University (for-profit educational institution) and the second consisted of 200 from Boston State College (non-profit educational institution). The results indicate that there is no significant difference in the point-of-view of both groups towards current educational issues. These findings contribute to the understanding of which of the two educational structures, for-profit and non-profit, is better for students.

Introduction

The changing mutually supportive modes and methods of the global market, financial globalization and egalitarianism in the 20th century are mainly a result of resourceful use and re-structure of equipment, transport, and contact. There is no doubt that all of these advancements have been monumental in increasing the trade between various parts of the world, irrespective of their accessibility factors, it is also important to note that the major advantage by these innovations has landed in the hands of the international and multinational business world, which has lead to further innovative structuring by these international bodies to gain some sort of a slackened advantage on the trade restrictions while expanding the spectrum of their target markets (Steketee, 2004).

Public education, on the surface, comes across as an independent, free and privately sponsored mechanism but, in practicality, it is greatly bent by the structures and inspirations of the business world at large. There is a growing need for the future generations to be more adept and ready in the global market along with its strenuous demands; close analysis of the primary and secondary traditional educational setups in the United States have not been up to the standards of what is necessary and hence have given rise to the phenomenon of the for-profit school management corporations. The upside of the for-profit school management corporation setup is that is has a huge prospective for profitable change in the education system, if the phenomenon is adopted on a large scale premises. This allows the corporate head an easy chance to expand their markets; the downside, though, is that these corporate heads will not see an incentive to invest in or assist the markets that are autonomous in the education sector (Steketee, 2004).

The growth of economic globalization and no change in innovative educational setups to meet the global demands of the markets is visibly unequal, particularly in the United States. In the past decade or so, this particular gap has become more prominent as researchers start to pay attention to the loop holes in development. The previous studies have given researchers a vast collection of policies and strategies both in the fields of economics and education that, if implemented correctly, could result in an equal upward progress in the socio-economic spheres. However, the vastness of these strategies does not take away from the divisive assessments made afterwards (Chung, 2006).

It is an obvious argument that the earlier a person is exposed to innovative secondary education styles, the more effective will be his use of that which he has learned and his won skills relative to what is needed (Knudsen, Heckman, Cameron & Shonkoff 2006), however, it is also a reality that there are many people in the present, and will be more in the future, who would have passed the age criterion of those applicable to receive secondary education and hence they will need innovative and effective post-secondary education. The reason why this percentage of the population is resorting to the for-profit1 sector management educational setup is because they feel like they aren't being assisted enough by the conventional civic and private non-profit establishments (Phipps et al. 2000; Chung, 2006).

The phenomenon of the for-profit or administrative post-secondary institutions has been prevalent in the U.S.A. since the mid 1800s. The primary difference between the traditional setup of secondary education (non-profit public and private) and the administrative secondary educational setup (for-profit phenomenon) lies in arrangement/distribution of the authoritative, administrative and tenure responsibilities. The for-profit institutions are run by a panel of managers that are mainly hired or chosen by the corporate owner. These managers run the institution like a business and are probable to be under-studied, distribute stock, gain a lot of media limelight, gain or develop profit-making opportunities, be generally discussed on a large scale and be excised; all of which are extremely new aspects of an American institution in the sector of public education.

The Higher Education Act has been put back into action in the recent years and has hence given rise or highlighted the controversial aspects of the proprietary or for-profit institutions and the education provided by them. The phenomenon of for-profit institutions and education has risen in popularity at an astounding percentage and has emerged as a fierce competitor of the conventional educational setups. The increase in the for-profit institutions can be clearly seen for the increase in the admissions lists of students, in 1995 the percentage was 1.7% (which amounts to almost 240,363 students) that increased to a whopping 3.02% in 2000 (which amounts to 450,084 students), and continues to rise even today. One of the most interesting facts is that the 3% of enrolled students in the for-profit program got their financial assistance under the influence of Title IV of the "The Higher Education Act;" it is, hence, no surprise where the fierce controversy related to the non-profit setup arises from. The federal financial assistance is usually given to those students who face a particular shortcoming of some sorts, the question then arises that if these finances were used for assisting or supporting the education of those students who had a shortcoming, will the end product be as satisfactory or pleasing, or will this particular pattern be another hidden benefit of the private sector at the expense of the public sector?

As mentioned before, the phenomenon of the for-profit post-secondary educational setup is under-studied and whatever research is available is extremely complex (St. John, Starkey and Paulsen 1995). The National Center for Education Statistic (NCES) has been the main source of the data provided on the studies done in the sector of educational setups and structures, but has never been able to provide the researches with a wide enough spectrum, models or data that could encompass the phenomenon of for-profit institutions (Jaeger 1999). NPSAS was the only study in 1996 that encompassed the people who enrolled in the for-profit institutions which is why not even the very basic criteria of the for-profit sector and its educational setup has been well-recognized (Breneman, Pusser and Turner 2000; Chung, 2006).

The confirmation that the students who had some sort of shortcoming whether in the financial sector, minority aspect or admittance-timeline factor were the ones who mainly enrolled in the for-profit educational institution was made by Apling and Aleman in a study they conducted in 1990, and Lee and Merisotis in a study they conducted in the same year which were also then matched by Phipps et al. (2000) and JBL Associates (2004).

Grubb was the only researcher who, in the year 1993, explored and assessed the influence and affect of the concept of the industrial market proceeds in relation to the non-profit institutions and education. He assessed and studied the National Longitudinal Study of the H.S. Class of 1972 (NLSY-72) under the OLS regression model and highlighted the income-earning patterns of the non-profit post-secondary graduates and also concluded that there was no significant profits gained by the non-profit institutions for their long-term earnings. In his study, Grubb made no effort to change or approve the prejudiced assortment of the enrolled students. Another aspect that needs to be taken into consideration is that the corporate and global market keeps changing according to the annual fiscal requirements, developing with the innovative changes, influenced by the changing federal laws as well as the market criteria for the provision of the financial assistance and the educational regulations and modifications in the overall structure. So there is no way to determine if the assessments and conclusion made by Grubb are at all relative to the current for-profit educational setup and phenomenon.

St. John, Starkey and Paulsen (1995) with the help of NPSAS 1987 carried out a quantitative analysis, the only of its kind, on the educational consequences in relation to the influence of the financial support provided annually to the diligent and hard-working students of the for-profit institutions. The conclusion made at the end of the study was that the financial aid and assistance provided to the diligent and hard-working students studying under the for-profit educational setup was used extremely constructively and yielded desirable results specifically amongst the African-Americans and Hispanics.

Even though there hasn't been much research done in the past on the authoritative patterns and the basic setup of the for-profit post-secondary institutions, it is however getting its due attention now and more and more studies are being conducted on the concerned topic and its affects overall. Numerous studies are also being conducted on the effect and consequence of the federal financial aid provided to the students enrolling in the for-profit educational setup and its consequences thereof (Cellini 2005). However, irrespective of all that, there are still many dimensions and factors of the for-profit educational structure, institutions, economic/financial setups and students that we are still unaware of.

Statement of the problem

One important factor is the debate currently taking place in the scholarly community about the inadequacy of the traditional educational set up and the controversies surrounding the for-profit education set up. While researchers continue to give their opinions about the kind of educational set up best suited for U.S. (Chung, 2006), they fail to take into consideration the opinion of the students. Numerous research studies have shown the tendency to use technical data (such as age, demographics, annual income etc.) so as to support their argument (Grubb and Tuma 1991; Apling, 1993; Grubb 1993a, b). These studies, however, fail to take the opinions of students who have studied in both forms of educational setups, i.e. traditional and for-profit. Therefore, this study will assess the adequacy of both forms of educational systems, non-profit and for-profit, by taking into account, the opinion of the students who have studied in these institutions.

Hypothesis

Civic contributions of students

Peterson, Augustine, Einarson, and Vaughan (1999) in their research reveal that the non-profit education serves the greater public interest because of the contributions made by the students who graduate from institutions. They refer to these contributions as human capital, i.e. economic contributions made by these graduates along with social and non-fiscal contributions, e.g. good parenting, health and security, etc. So, in a way the best way to serve the public interest is to solidify the higher education in such a way that it produces not only good employees but also good citizens. However, OECD (2004) reveals that American graduates are lesser efficient and contribute lesser when compared with their counterparts in Europe. Other researchers too agree with this conclusion (Brewer, Gates, and Goldman, 2002). While it is clear that American graduates do not contribute as much as their European counterparts, difference in attitude towards civic contribution between students who receive education in a non-profit institution against students who receive education in a for-profit institution is not known. In order to assess the benefits of for-profit against non-profit education, it is important that attitude of students in both these institutions be evaluated. We believe that there will be no significant difference in the attitude towards civic contribution between students who receive education in a non-profit institution against students who receive education in a for-profit institution. We base our belief on the study carried out by Dill and Soo (2004) who reveal that inadequate and unauthentic information of the global market and its link with both forms of higher educational setup has decreased the standard of education considerably. Therefore, our first hypothesis is:

H1: There will be no significant difference in the attitude towards civic contribution between students who receive education in a non-profit institution against students who receive education in a for-profit institution.

Financial proportion of for-profit and non-profit educational institution

Studies have shown that financial support to students studying in for-profit education is used extremely constructively and yields desirable results (John, Starkey and Paulsen 1995; Cellini 2005). Funding for the for-profit education has also been on the rise after the commencement of the Higher Education Act (St. John, Starkey and Paulsen 1995). Nonetheless, students studying in for-profit institutions receive a very tiny amount of the federal financial assistance. The attitude of students studying in for-profit institution towards financial aid is still unknown. While the government continues to increase their share on behalf of students studying in non-profit institutions (St. John, Starkey and Paulsen 1995), Phipps et al. (2000) argues that the government should allocate more funds to students in for-profit institutions without decreasing the financial aid of students in non-profit institutions. Based on these studies, we present our second and third hypotheses:

H2: Students studying in for-profit, as well as, non-profit institutions will more likely prefer an increase in allocation of their financial aid without decreasing the financial aid of students in non-profit institutions.

Standard of Job opportunities after Graduation number of research studies have shown that for-profit institutions have increased job opportunities for students (Jackson 1978; St. John 1991; St. John and Noel 1989; St. John et al. 1995). Goodwin in his study (1989, cited in St. John et al. 1995) concluded that the graduates from for-profit institutions were receiving higher hourly incomes than those that graduated from the conventional community colleges or public/private schools. However, other researchers have put forward conflicting results. Lyke, Gabe and Aleman (1991, cited in Grubb 1993a) and Moore and Smith (1992) assert that no significant difference exists in income earnings and job opportunities between students studying in for-profit and non-profit institutions. Therefore, our third hypotheses is:

H3: Students will more likely feel that neither for-profit nor non-profit institution will have any significant bearing on the job opportunities and income level they will receive after graduation.

Aims and objectives behind for-profit educational institutions

Knudsen, Heckman, Cameron & Shonkoff (2006), Phipps et al. (2000) and (Chung, 2006) reveal that for-profit institutions have emerged as a strong alternative because they resort to innovation and creativity and that traditional education lacks this structure. With the global dynamics shifting towards cut-throat competition, innovation and creativity are the current buzz words in the real world. Students have got to be equipped with these tools so as to lead others into the future (Phipps et al. 2000). Researchers have ignored to seek opinion of students in these institutions. Nonetheless, based on the aforementioned study, our forth hypothesis is:

H4: Students studying in for-profit institution are more likely to have higher confidence in their creativity and ability than students studying on non-profit institution.

Aims and objectives behind non-profit Educational institution

Dill (2001) asserts that one of the main aims of all the conventional universities and institutions is to make as much profit as possible and widen the gap between revenue and expenditure. He further asserts that the concept of common good is fast declining and the government needs to take control before the global dynamics leave the higher education system behind. Opinion of students in these institutions has been ignored by researchers. Nonetheless, based on the aforementioned study, our fifth hypnotizes is:

H5: Students studying in both non-profit and for-profit institutions will feel that public universities are not focused towards delivering common good and increasing the standard of overall education and instead are focusing on increasing their profits.

Criterion of Admission

Brewer, Gates, and Goldman (2002) assert that the common denominator between the public and private institutions in America was that they were all being driven by the policies that allowed the admissions' criteria to be based on the student's ability to earn an educational merit, scholarship and/or receive discounts on the tuition fees. The basic aim of the universities by doing so is to admit only the cream of the crop in to the institution which the researchers feel does not guarantee that the university will yield high academic quality and human capital. Based on the aforementioned facts, we present our sixth hypothesis:

H6: Students studying in both, non-profit and for-profit institutions, feel that both forms of educational setups have a biased and unfair selection criterion.

Education Standards

The Brewer, Gates and Goldman study (2002) also compared the attitudes of the non-profit and for-profit institutions on the basis of what they were willing to do for prestige. And surprisingly, they concluded that the non-profit institutions were more likely to let the academic quality go below par while the for-profit institutions could not as they have to compete and maintain their reputation on the basis of academic quality instead of the annual statistics of academic research. Hence, the for-profit institutions were the ones that concentrated more on the student's needs as opposed to the steps that would boost the ratings of the institutions. Based in this research, we present our seventh hypothesis:

H7: Students studying in for-profit institutions are more likely to be satisfied with education standards than students studying in non-profit institutions.

Rationale

Education is the lifeblood of any country. The survival of educational institutions depends on their ability to attract students and create an environment that will advance the purpose of education. Early theories on the non-profit education were based on the assumption of common good and that everyone should get the same standard of education (Dill 2001). However, with the failure of traditional educational institutions to fulfill the needs of students, for-profit institutions have emerged as a strong and vibrant alternative (Knudsen, Heckman, Cameron & Shonkoff 2006; Phipps et al. 2000; Chung, 2006). Nonetheless, several vital educational issues continue to exist even with the growth of for-profit education. Researchers have put forward a number of theories and given a number suggestions to overcome these challenges (Brewer, Gates, and Goldman 2002), however, to date, research lacks on student attitude towards the issues that surround both, for-profit and non-profit education. Opinion of students towards vital issues like admission criterion, financial assistance, education objectives, education standards, job opportunities and income levels are vital for drafting the future setup of education and yet surprisingly they have been completely ignored by researchers. This study will, therefore, present the viewpoint of students towards the issues surrounding the education system today.

Chapter 2

Literature Review

At present, for-profit higher education institutions are basically proprietary institutions that provide education to students who have high school graduate degrees or equivalent degrees and provide them with an opportunity to specialize in a certain profession after the basic education has been completed, e.g. word-processing, cosmetology, machine repair, tractor-tracker driving, etc. Similarly, for profit-schools provide education from K-12. Their marketing strategies mainly revolve around inducing their potential clients into the concise but effective length of the course and the eventual advance in the job opportunities and windows that would be available after the completion of the course. Their main advertising outlets are advertisements during day time television shows, in subways or other commonly used areas or those areas that frequently experience rush hours.

Whatever we now know about the for-profit educational institutions and their setups is based on numerous researches and studies that have been done in the past as well as the commentary, explanations and countrywide data-sets assembled by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) of the United States Department of Education. The two datasets that have been frequently used are the series of National Postsecondary Student Aid Studies (particularly NPSAS: 87, NPSAS: 90, NPSAS: 93, and NPSAS: 96) and the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) (Chung, 2006). The NCES has used all of the abovementioned resources and carried out studies taking into account the conventional public and private as well as the for-profit educational setups, however, they have failed to take into account the perspectives and opinions of the students involved in both of these educational setups (NCES 1992a, b, 1993a, b, 1995). Some of the other research studies have also explored various prospects of this multilayered topic. Grubb and Tuma carried out a similar study where they analyzed and observed the patterns of financial funds provided to for-profit institutions in comparison with all the rest secondary institutions (Grubb and Tuma 1991). Apling in his study in 1993 gave a further detailed account of explanatory facts and figures (Apling, 1993). Grubb also conducted a study in 1993 where he compared the salary packages of the for-profit graduates and the standard graduates (Grubb 1993a, b). There has, however, been no research done that incorporates the point-of-views of students of either the for-profit or the conventional school setup (Chung, 2006).

According to survey done in 1995-6 by the U.S. Department of Education (1997, p. 374), the number of for-profit institutions amounted to 4,551 by the end of 1996 in the United States. Also, about 1/3 of these 4,551 were the sub-branches of other for-profit schools or institutions but all of these institutions were provided specialized education to those students who chose to enroll themselves in: 24% of these institutions specialized in the business and marketing strategies, whereas 40% were providing specialized education in cosmetology, and 36% were giving specialized training in sectors of information technology, industrial vocation, medicine, shipping, or other occupations (Apling 1993). According to another study carried out in the following year, a total of 630,319 students had been admitted into the for-profit institutions by the fall of the 1995 academic year (U.S. Department of Education 1997), which constituted a whopping 4% of all the students who had been enrolled in the post secondary educational setups. The pattern of enrolled students on in the for-profit institutions has emerged over the years and is seen as an uneven distribution between the women, underprivileged and minorities. The majority of these students are older them most students would be at other institutions and are probably the ones who could not or did not get a college or high school diploma. Most of them are also most probably married. When looking at what is needed in the education sector, this percentage of the population is the one that seems to be needing the most assistance from the state and the government as possible, and the revised edition of the Higher Education Act taken put in 1986 acknowledged that fact and allowed the federal funds to be used for and by the for-profit organizations (Apling 1993; Salganik and Hopper 1990; Chung, 2006).

Grubb is their study observed it wasn't until after the year 1992 when the federal financial funds became a little more balanced, because before that the students enrolled in the for-profit institutions got more percentage of the total federal funded assistance then any of the other students from other institutional setups (Grubb, 1993). In fact, they received higher portion in the percentage of the total federal funds allocated for the students than any of the students enrolled at the public universities, community colleges, or private four-year colleges/universities. The consistent or stable socio-economic position of the student (whether or not the student required on-campus residency, traditions, was dependent/independent, income earned if independent, the tuition needed, age, and duration of the course) was never even considered a factor before the funds were transferred. However, after 1992 the proportion for the for-profit institutions designated by the Federal Family Education Loan has decreased from 35.1% in the year 1987 to 9.4% in the year 1995 (Chung, 2006).

Research on for-profit schools and universities

There have numerous researches that have been carried out to prove or disprove that the for-profit educational setup has increased the level of job opportunities for the attendants as well as promote hard work and diligence amongst its students (for example, Jackson 1978; St. John 1991; St. John and Noel 1989; St. John et al. 1995). All of these researches commonly agree to the fact that the for-profit educational setup has increased the job opportunities for under-privileged portions of a population and nations as a whole as well. All these researches commonly agreed that the pattern of poor or minority-based students enrolled in larger percentages in the for-profit institutions not because the other students could not but only because the poor and minorities were more likely of the two to persevere in the particular setup (St. John et al. 1995, p. 161). What these researches failed to notice or highlight was the latent effects or consequences of the implementation of such educational programs and setups. There is no denying the fact that there are certain for-profit institutions that have been significantly prominent in instigating positive and constructive influences on the job opportunities of a large proportion of the students. There were two additional researches that were conducted before the HEA established that for-profit institutions helped the students get jobs during the 1970s and 1980s (Moore 1986; Mills 1977). Moore and Smith (1992) in their study researched the efficiency of the for-profit institution-based programs and concluded that around 2/3 of the for-profit institutions in Minnesota completed their programs as per designed while 60% completed them countrywide. Yet, these groups of researches failed to incorporate the opinions of the students both from the conventional, public and private, as well as the for-profit institutional graduates.

Another group of studies have analyzed the likely fiscal or economic reimbursements that for-profit educational setup might provide to the overall educational setup. Goodwin in his study (1989, cited in St. John et al. 1995) carried out a regression analyses on the income revenue differences between the graduates of the conventional institutions and the for-profit institutions. He carried these analyses on the High School and Beyond (HSB) graduating class of 1980, and concluded that the graduates from for-profit institutions were receiving highly hourly incomes than those that graduated from the conventional community colleges or public/private schools. but, there was also a higher probability of the students graduating form the for-profit institutions to not be able to get jobs in the field they specialized in and remain unemployed. In a contradicting study conducted by Lyke, Gabe and Aleman (1991, cited in Grubb 1993a), they established that getting post-secondary education from the for-profit institution, whether the student has graduated from the program or not, did not result in an increase in earning or short-term incomes if they were based on the variables like public and cultural backgrounds of the person. The Moore and Smith's study of Minnesota mentioned before also complemented the above conclusion as they too recognized that students who graduated from the for-profit institutions earned comparatively small incomes, e.g. almost 50% of the graduate earned $1,200 or less on a monthly basis. In the following studies there were two researches that concentrated on the long-term financial stability that could be provided to the students who graduated from the for-profit institutions in comparison to those that graduated from the conventional educational setup (Grubb 1993a, b). The studies concluded that there was no particular pattern of economic or financial stability or gain dependent upon getting a degree form the for-profit or conventional educational setup. Grubb feels that this lacking in the influences or consequences might hide or cause misunderstandings in the variations of the numerous schools or students and/or hide the influences of some of the programs in general. Since there have been so much attention paid to the economic or financial returns/stability in the form of researches, this particular aspect will not be focused on in this study. Instead we focus on the opinions of the students who have graduated from both from the conventional, public and private, as well as the for-profit institutions.

The abovementioned researches did incorporate some of the important aspects of the consequences of the two educational setups in comparison, yet, they failed to incorporate the opinions of the graduating students regarding the influences and effects of the educational upbringing they received both from the conventional, public and private, as well as the for-profit institutions. This current study is going to pay attentions to the opinions of the graduating students regarding the influences and effects of the educational upbringing they received both from the conventional, public and private, as well as the for-profit institutions.

Research on non-profit Public Schools

There has been research done keeping the students as the criteria in the past, however most of the research, particularly that done on non-profit public schools, has been restricted to the time period of a student from the basic kindergarten to the 12th grade. This timeline i.e. The time when students are in kindergarten all the way to grade 12, usually comprises of the vocation of more than 116,000 conventionally setup public and private institutions and at an approximate took up about $350-300 billion of the allocated allowance to the educational setup in 1995, with the student count of more than 53 million.

There have been numerous facts and figures and information provided in the past that highlights the inadequacy of the education provided in the state-run conventional schools' setup. Furthermore, this inadequacy becomes more prominent:

Amongst the fourth graders, where students are in the 9-11 age groups, numerous American students have the capability to read and write with far more dexterity then any of their counterparts, however, they are not that skillful at mathematical skills and science.

Amongst the eighth graders, we can see a vast improvement in the mathematical skills and interest in science, however, this improvement is made due to the ignorance of and lagging in the department of reading. By the time these students enter the 12th and final grade, they seem to be behind in certain important skills then 95% of the children in other countries of the world. The apparent conclusion seems to be that the longer a child pursues his education in an American school setup, the more likely he is to fall behind.7

Since the mid-1970s, stats and figures have shown an annual decrease in the average grade that is awarded to a student in particular institutions and in the country in general. The majority of the students are awarded grades between C. And C+ (Digest of Education Statistics, 1999). since the year 1991, researches have shown stats where the parents have inclined towards "choosing" private school setups and paying through the tax dollars for the education than having no choice at all. This particular rise in choice has doubled and in places tripled since 1991, with majority of the parents inclining towards the private setup of schools (Clowes, 2000).

The awareness of inadequacy of the public school setup has increased the dissatisfaction amongst the parents all over and has given rise to other more effective and practically boosting alternative choices like private schools, private scholarships, charter schools, voucher programs funded by the public, home schooling, training tax credits, etc. The states of Minnesota, Arizona, Iowa, and Illinois have all in the past decade approved the training tax credits system. Milwaukee, Cleveland, and Florida have also been open towards the concept of the publicly funded voucher programs and have [practically been successful in the effective implementation of the program. The concept of charter schools was initiated in the state of Minnesota back in 1991, and since then has been adopted by 36 other states including Columbia and Puerto Rico (Lips, 2000). Simultaneously, numerous privately-owned business have started programs where they have provided opportunities for students to earn college or university scholarships. A good example of this would be the Children's Scholarship Fund that had by the end of 1999 send about 40,000 students to private schools through scholarships spending about $160 million in finances. According to the statistics provided by the Home School Legal Defense Fund, on an average there had been an annual increase of 15% of home-schooled students since 1990, and by the end of 1998, there were approximately 1.5 million students who were home-schooled. An interesting fact to know here nonetheless is that even though the rise in the demand and existence of alternative school setup choices has risen tremendously, the majority of the financial control still lies in the hand of the government, about 75% to be more exact. The state still has control of the elementary education as well as the high schools, where almost 90% of the population is educated which give the state an almost monopoly position in the education structure (Lips, 2000).

Numerous researches bring for the various reasons and causes for the declining adequacy of the public school setup, but mainly the reason behind the decline of public education status is the absence of healthy competition. Lewis Perelman, in his book "School's Out," explains that creativity and efficiency is missing in American education for mainly the same reasons they had been missing in Soviet educational system, i.e. lack of competition (as cited in Lips, 2000)."

Numerous educationists felt that one way to improve the public education structure was to create innovative ways through which the state-run schools would face healthy competition within and outside their domain with the use of various new and modern products and services. There are numerous organizations that are re-structuring the school systems from scratch while others are providing insights on steps needed to improve the current setup through the re-training of teachers, use of modern technologies, or the implementation of alternative ideas/options like scholarships, tutors, home-schooling, etc. To further help re-structuring of the public school setup, an overview and analyses of the for-profit institutions during the kindergarten and grade 12 years of a student's life, along with the goods and services they are providing, is also given. This study will try to incorporate the students' opinions regarding the changes that are being made and whether they are necessary or right and what else can be done.

Research on non-profit Public Universities

The concept of Common-Good is one of the decisive factors in the researches conducted on the policies and structures of the higher education system. There have been numerous descriptions given to explain this particular concept. Firstly, there are groups that feel that education, at its core, is a common good and hence can only be provided by the government. According to this, the overall public interest is at a loss in the U.S. If the state's interest in the higher educational setup declines. Secondly, there are groups that feel that the institutions that provide education have done well enough to contribute to the common good as a whole but their efforts are pushed back by the requirement of competition and diverse outlets that provide education. When considering this process of thought, it clearly seems to indicate that more control needs to be put on the managerial or ownership criteria of an educational setup, discouraging the growth of the current ideas implemented by the for-profit educational institutions.

Firstly, it is important to note that education is a common good. It is also important to note that economic definition of a common good is a service or product that is neither challenged on the consumption or purchase and is not discriminating on the issue of authority or ownership. These type of common goods, due to their extent mainly, will either not be provided at all by the private sector or will be provided irregularly or inadequately and hence shall be mainly provided by the government or state. But when the economists apply this same definition to the concept of education, they all agree that the neither the higher education setups nor the services that they provide can be treated as common goods (Barr, 2004) as both conventional public or private non-profit institutions as well as the for-profit institutions contribute equally to the essential and practical educational research, grades, and reference.

Global Educational status

The educational setup in the United Kingdom, and else where in Europe has found a bridge between the two concepts of public and private institutions. The majority of the universities in the Europe are independently owned by the private entrepreneurs but their financial security and independence in running the structuring of the educational setup as well as the use of the products and services is guaranteed by laws. In Britain, for instance, financial security and independence in running the structuring of the educational setup is guaranteed by the Royal Charter or by Parliamentary Statute (Williams, 2004). So they share the similarity of the private universities and are yet different form the state-owned universities of the world, including the United States. How is common good a guaranteed provision by the private sector in Europe, one might ask. The answer is simple: Guaranteed performance contracts are signed between the state and private owners in order to promise the best of both worlds: financial security and innovative research and teaching facilities.

The concept of Public Service has been an important phenomenon in the American Educational Setup but not so much in the European educational setup, this however is changing. In U.K. The public service has now been incorporated as the all important third function within an independent university setup where these institutions vie for funds that would help them endorse various public services like concise preparatory programs and references (Williams, 2004). Even though, this particular implementation of allowing the private sector to provide a common good like education might seem extremely new but there have been many land-grant colleges setup all over the United States that provide a similar outlook, Cornell University, New York is a good example of a functional and efficient Lang-Grant Institution.

In the same way, the main aim of the federal government is to get efficient and thorough essential and practical research done; this however is not at all reliant upon the research conducted in a state-run educational institution. By offering contracts as well as a competitive playground for public services to the public and private universities, the federal government makes sure that the profit-making corporations carry out significant and innovative research that serves the greater public interest.

Because of the pattern of independent universities and state contracts, the actual concept of a "public" institution has become distorted. One example of his would be the Darden Graduate School of Business Administration at the public University of Virginia who has recently been declined of any financial share by the state and earns all their finance through the extremely high rates of tuition fees as well as private endowments. Does that make the University of Virginia's business school a private or a public institution? It is not a hidden fact that the majority of the public research universities are keenly making as much profit as possible though various means such as through distance education, entrepreneurial development or sale of research, licensing of the university's good name, etc. all of which are lucidly recognized in Roger Geiger's recent study (2004), in which he analyzes the activities of the public and private research universities.

Therefore, considering the above statements and facts, addressing public and/or private universities as "non-profit" bodies is absolutely incorrect. One of the main aims of all the conventional universities and institutions is to make as much profit as possible or to widen the gap between the expenditures and revenues made, making it more bent on the revenues' side. The concept of a public university changes to a "publicly-supported" institutions as the reality of the decrease in government funds sets in and a rise in the revenue made from student debts, funds, private donations, business deals, etc. rises making the original concepts of the public and private universities more ambiguous.

Dill believes that if the public interest cannot be sustained and maintained by the state policies to provide the institutions with an independent means of control then maybe the state should take over the control if that is the only way public interest can remain intact. There is nor arguing the fact that some drastic changes will need to be made regarding the overall state policies. The independent driven but government funded as well as state controlled institutions are all trying to find way to detach themselves from the government hold and laws regarding both the educational requirements and overall administration (Dill, 2001). In some states like Colorado, Florida, Washington and Virginia deliberations are already underway to scrutinize and change the relationship between the state and the research institutions. Dill, however, does believe that this consequence was predictable and to an extent an effort in the public interest was an underlying consequence (Dill, 2001).

The increasing competitive nature of the global markets does put a lot of pressure on the governments to prepare the students for its brunt by applying the UK style of autonomous control as the conventional method will no longer be sufficient enough. There is no doubt, however, that eventually the private universities and the authoritarians appointed to run the board of these universities will be inclined towards making personal profits rather then serving the greater public interest. but, all things considered, all the facts that have been mentioned above point to one common fact which is that both state authority is losing its way and losing efficiency to achieve and/or guard the public interest in the higher education sector (Dill, 2001).

Another definition of the common good, put forward by researchers, is the idea that the products and services provided by the public universities are the real donations that an institution can make in the form of a common good to serve the greater public interest. According to this definition, this form of common good is constantly vulnerable to the numerous vigorous feature of the global market especially the hunger to make quick and easy profits. The one definition of common good, that researchers seem to agree on, is the fact that it serves the greater public interest because of the contributions made by the students who graduate from the institutions. The contributions can be referred to as human capital in its broadest sense, i.e. The economic and business contributions made by these graduates as well as the social and non-fiscal contributions made by the graduates, e.g. good parenting, health and security, etc. So, in a way the best way to serve the public interest is to solidify the higher education in such a way that it produces not only good employees but also good citizens (Peterson, Augustine, Einarson, and Vaughan, 1999).

Of course, when we practically place the definition mentioned above on the U.S. Education setup, it highlights quite a few problematic aspects. The first problem arises in the production of the higher education, i.e. The graduates are not efficient and effective forms of human capital even though the American universities are agreed upon as the best research universities in the world. When compared to parts of Western Europe, the U.S. lags behind while the European graduates seem to produce higher and more effective return ratios at lesser percentage of expenditure (OECD, 2004). Matters are not helped with discussions and doubts arising amongst the American policy makers as well as the nation at large on the actual quality and standard of the academics at the American universities. The debate is that the capital spent on the undergraduate and higher educational structures is not resulting in an equally payback in the form of the quality of the academics achieved. According to the principles of enduring customs, the official (government seal) recognition of a university and its academic performance is enough to satisfy the critics and nation about the quality of the education being provided, but recently most states and many policy-makers have addressed the concerning issues amongst the nation of the low quality of the under-graduates educational setup through revised laws and policies. The failure of these revised laws (Peterson, Augustine, Einarson, and Vaughan, 1999) has further aggravated the state to act on more vigorous and aggressive policies like analysis of the financial support given to the undergraduate program and its consequences (Burke, 2002).

The fact that the U.S. education structure depends upon the market setup and its changes is not a revelation, however, it has to be noted that this particular comparison has become a bit more lopsided in the last 15 or so years as the global market increases in strenuous financial and business demands within the U.S. As well as at a world-wide stage and adds a lot more pressure on the already questioned higher education setup (Dill, 2003). And while this increase in competition is supposed to be having a positive effect and creating more opportunities for public interest and greater human capital, on the other hand, what it is doing is highlighting how susceptible the market is to a collapse and how the increased competition has further demoralized the efforts being made to boost the higher educational setup.

According to Dill and Soo, the main reason for the increasing competition between the universities for higher academic status as a research engine instead of higher academic quality and human capital is a cause of the inadequate and unauthentic information of the global market and its link with the higher educational setup (Dill and Soo, 2004). In a national study of the U.S. higher education market Brewer, Gates, and Goldman (2002) concluded that the common denominator between the public and private institutions in America was that they were all being driven by the policies that allowed the admissions' criteria to be based on the student's ability to earn an educational merit, scholarship and/or receive discounts on the tuition fees. The basic aim of the universities by doing so is to admit only the cream of the crop in to the institution which the researchers feel does not guarantee that the university will yield high academic quality and human capital. Kuh and Pascarella in their research concluded that there was no link whatsoever between the selection process of any institutions and the adoption of certain academic norms regarded as the boosters of academic quality and learning (Kuh and Pascarella, 2004). The selection process in no way can guarantee the outcome or the end product of an institution's learning procedures and their efficacy rates. The downside to increased competition is that it distracts the managers and teaching staffs at the universities from their basic purpose of educating and concentrate on prestige and status achieved on annual rating.

The Brewer, Gates and Goldman study (2002) also compared the attitudes of the non-profit and for-profit institutions on the basis of what they were willing to do for prestige. And surprisingly, they concluded that the non-profit institutions were more likely to let the academic quality go below par while the for-profit institutions could not as they have to compete and maintain their reputation on the basis of academic quality instead of the annual statistics of academic research, etc. hence, the for-profit institutions were the ones that concentrated more on the student's needs as opposed to the steps that would boost the ratings of the institutions. A good example of this could be that the for-profit institutions could most probably be willing to spend time and capital to make sure that every program and course underwent growth and improvement with the progression of time, that the students were a given a more relaxed schedule so that they could give them to their hobbies and extra-curricular activities as well as provide the students with a variety of services, etc.

According to the study done by Rosovksy and Hartley, one of the most prominent signs of the low quality of academics is the grade increase seen on a regular and stable level amongst many students (Rosovksy and Hartley, 2002). This particular conclusion was also voiced in one of the Congress meetings called to discuss the revision of the Higher Education Act where majority of the speakers agreed that the phenomenon of seeing a more precise and gradual growth of grades where fewer and fewer students got lesser marks was also a clear indication of the lowering merits and capabilities required in the educational standards. When research was done on the overall activities that the students were involved in, Kuh concluded that the point made about the grade inflation was a very logical and valid point (Kuh, 1999). His studies revealed that the students in the early 1990s showed sign of being involved in more extra-curricular activities than learning or educational activities but irrespective they received good grades and very rarely were any given marks below what was considered par.

The problem with grade inflation is that the students will not feel the urge to work harder at a subject and will not necessarily see an incentive in the consistent diligence and will slack off, which will completely throw off the intention to get admission in a certain institution, due to its reputation or popularity. The bigger problem though, caused by grade inflation, lies in the disturbing and unsatisfying effect that the grading system would have on the behavior and choices that the staff or students will make all over the institution. The choices that the students make when choosing a career in a certain faculty might be affected by the grading setup in a way that may be disadvantageous to the overall social interest (Rosovsky and Hartley, 2002). The overall grading system will in turn affect the enrollments procedures, financial divisions per department, etc. which will provide numerous staff members with different opportunities to grow financially, etc. Sabot and Wakeman-Linn in their study on the effect on the grading system made the said that if grading practices had been more balanced, American students would be taking more courses in natural sciences and mathematics. Their conclusion (Sabot and Wakeman-Linn, 1991) was later complemented by Johnson (2003).

To sum it all up, the present competition in the global market has exposed the weak educational setup and its vulnerability to succumb to the profit-making opportunities. This study will include the opinion of the students about the issues surrounding the present educational system

Discussion on the literature review

Glaeser and Shleifer (2001) in their study analyzed why an organization or an entrepreneur might choose a non-profit organization over a profit organization. In their study they concluded that if an entrepreneur chooses the non-profit pattern then he is choosing the income generated over the benefits that can be gained from the profit making opportunities. But why would an organization choose to block these benefits? The answer lies in the types of sectors that the nonprofit setup is utilized in. Mainly, a non-profit organization uses the revenues that are generated for the advancements, progress and incentives for the employees and clients. This could be one of the main reasons why non-profit institutions are more successful in the long-term in certain vocations. Some of the typical vocations taken up by entrepreneur when starting on a profit institution are those where both the clients and the staff are valuable assets to the success of the vocation like doctors, teachers, patients and parents (Glaeser and Shleifer 2001).

Non-profit educational setup is a requirement for certain vocations where the sequestering of the clients takes place. These types of situation can be simultaneously useful for the co-existence of both the types of setups: profit and non-profit e.g. The choices that people make when choosing a school could be dependent upon their preference of excellence, status or philanthropy. Sometimes, organizations might slack off on the quality on the end product just because they are concentrating too much on the distribution of the revenues amongst the employees and other important pillars of the organization. This distribution of revenue might cause stressful situations which might result in a reduction of prices as well as quality affecting the future of the business. The lack of private and government in financial contracts is also one of the reasons that could create situations of a decline in quality. If some of these pressures were taken away the nonprofit organizations could flourish more successfully while giving the clients the quality that was promised. Since the quality is presumed to be higher within the non-profit organizational setup, the prices or costs tend to be higher as well, as people are willing to pay for the higher quality that is being promised, reputation of the organization also plays a part in the pricing. There are times however, when the increase in revenues can entice organizations change their patters from a non-profit organization to a for-profit organization. The advantage that the non-profit organizations have that the for-profit organizations do not have is the support of funds available from the tax revenues generated. But according to the researchers, Glaeser and Shleifer, the primary focus is not choosing the form of organizational setup rather it is the time, effort and diligence put in by the many employees whether paid or voluntary and their fair treatment (Glaeser and Shleifer 2001).

The advantage when discussing the amount of human input required in the organizational setup lies with both the forms of setups in different scenarios. For the profit-making organizations, they have the authority to distribute the profits made whichever way they see fit and most suitable which may attract certain types of employees that the non-profit organizational setup could not attract, but the non-profit organizations too have the inclination of those employees who are looking for the softer benefits in the form of flexibility in work hours put in like teachers, or better working environment, modern and updated use of technology etc. The advantage at the nonprofit organizations is that there is always job security while at the for-profit organizations there's always a probability of a decrease in pay or cutting down on the staff. However, the one downside in the non-profit organizational setup is that the employees are attracted towards the soft benefits that had been offered and there is always a high probability of employees leaving their offices if these benefits are taken away or there is a decrease in the quality of these benefits. Nevertheless these soft benefits are easily available in the global market which might be another reason why entrepreneurs might choose a non-profit organization over a for-profit one. The importance of all the soft benefits offered is valued by the staff functional-ability with the benefit and without it. The advantage for the consumer is that if the correct incentives are given and employees are happy, the quality of work will improve and the revenues generated might then also be utilized in the insurance of a certain high quality status of the products. The reputation of the organization also plays a key role of the choice of the consumers to purchase or invest in a certain deal (Glaeser and Shleifer 2001).

The benefits that are provided to the employees also in the long-run prevent the utilization or expenditure of the revenues generated in a sphere or area where it wasn't supposed to be utilized in. The non-profit organizations are dependent upon the contributions of the donators and the volunteers for the completion of their task and hence are also responsible for the interest and services needed to be given to these donators and volunteers for future contributions; all of the donations made to the non-profit organizations, according to Glaeser and Shleifer, are dependent upon the tax liberties or common interest of the donators, and, depending on tax leverages is not always suitable or possible for organizations across the globe. While the for-profit organizations are independent and mainly concentrate on their own goals without having anyone else's interest in mind. They have their own criterion and their own structure to attain that particular criterion (Glaeser and Shleifer 2001).

As already has been mentioned before, if and when the non-profit organizations do not under go the pressures of revenue and profit distribution, they can attain and sustain a certain level of quality in products and human capital. The trust and relationships need to be built between the company and the clients not only to retain these clients but also to make sure that future donations are going to be hefty and consistent and to achieve that they have to make sure that the donators are satisfied with the work that is being done and the way that the money is being spent. If there is even the slightest chance the non-profit status of the organization will change to for-profit, the donators are probable to not donate at all. Non-profit organizations are dependent upon their clients and employees while the for-profit organizations are independent of all peripheral factors are only answerable to the immediate owners and investors of the business. The aim to maximize profits might take concentration away from the quality of the product and hence hamper future business deals.

The big debate over the years has been the status of education as a common good, and whether it is amongst the services that need to be provided by the government only and whether or not the for-profit corporate sector's contributions are better for the overall academics of the country when compared to the conventional public and private educational structure, which comes across as backward and lacking compared to the advancements that have been made in the overall stance of the global market.

There have been numerous researches carried out in the past comparing the two forms of educational setups: the conventional, public institution; and the for-profit corporate sector. Both of these have been compared in the societal contributions, financial proportions in the total annual educational allowance, influences on the eventual job opportunities and windows for graduates, the aims and objectives behind both setups, as well as the influences of these aims and objectives on the enrollment processes, findings and selection preferences, etc.

The one research that has not been really carried out is the opinion of the other side of the coin i.e. The recipients of these educational setups, the students. This particular study is going to incorporate the students' opinions and point-of-views on what has been done, the reforms, alterations and their effects as well as the current academic issues mentioned above and what in their opinion is the solution to these dilemmas. In light of the aforementioned research studies, the research variables chosen for this study are the following:

Civic contributions of students

Financial proportion of for-profit and non-profit educational institution

Standard of Job opportunities after Graduation

The aims and objectives behind for-profit Educational institution

The aims and objectives behind non-profit Educational institution

Criterion of Admission

Teaching Standards

Chapter 3:

Methodology

Research Method

The co-existence of opposites has lasted in our lives eternally, e.g. The concepts of balanced equals like day and night; virtue and vice; male and female; mind and body; they are all elements that serve as the best indicators, not as the final facts. Why? Because even though, it would make things a lot simpler to judge on the basis of division, but the reality of it all is that practically variety/choice is the decisive factor, not the division. Nonetheless, the philosophers have observed two schools of thought that divide the world into two vast halves. One being Empiricism: This is that the empiricists believe that knowledge only comes from observing and experiencing. The second being Rationalism: this is that the rationalists believe that the mind is in a state of constant change and grows with contemplation of one's trials and activities and that the mind is capable of knowing before being put in a learning environment. Positivism is the theory and belief that rules the direction of modern sociological basics. Positivism is a direct branch of the empiricists' concept as it believes that whatever knowledge is gained is always preceded by observation, the aim being to link human learning to science and prove that situations of a learning environment can be duplicated under the same circumstances. The direct opposite of this concept is Post-positivism which mainly declares that human leaning is not driven by a procedure, it is a very diverse and complicated procedure, and humans not being machines, are likely to react and act different in similar and different situations. The concept of post-positivism has a queer effect on the task of a qualitative researcher (Altheide and Johnson, 1994; Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996).

The concepts of empiricism and rationalism dedifferentiate between all that is and isn't science and intelligence. Empiricism and its techniques all look to employ a strict objective approach which means that the quantitative researchers are to eliminate all sources of personal bias or emotions a.k.a. noise in scientific experiment in order to achieve correct and precise conclusions and statistics. Quantitative researchers claim that to be accurate in one's results, one must eradicate the bias of the human filter. An analysis of the manuals reporting recommendations by Madigan, Johnson, and Linton (1995) concluded:

"In APA style, language use is not allowed to call attention to itself. Dillion (1991) described this as the "rhetoric of objectivity" that has evolved to create the impression of neutrality or impersonal detachment and that is generally characteristic of the empirical studies. This effect is enhanced by giving the persona of the writer a low profile.... (as cited in Madigan, Johnson, and Linton 1995)"

"APA style leads toward practices that make language appear as a transparent medium for conveying objective information about a fixed external reality, (as cited in Madigan, Johnson, and Linton 1995 p. 431)"

The research method being used in this study is qualitative as the advantage of carrying out a qualitative study is that it does not always ignore the bias side of things, and is not necessarily always objective. In fact, all qualitative researchers monitor people in certain settings and then come to different conclusions depending on the techniques or methods they have chosen to employ. Another advantage is the clear variation that one can observe in the methods used and presentation of the conclusions. As a matter of fact, qualitative studiers give their personal opinion with a certain amount of concentration when carrying out a research because in their opinion the validity of a research does not lie in its objectivity. They not only let their personal opinions play a part in the conclusion they make but they also let their own interpretations of their observations have a major part in the final conclusions (Altheide and Johnson, 1994).

The reason for choosing qualitative research is because qualitative researchers all believe in the concept of relativity i.e. their own task as a part of the overall scenario being investigated. They believe that the researcher carrying out the study is very different from the next and has his own chain of thought and opinions and that when the researchers give their own point-of-view, they don't actually corrupt or defect the original report, in fact they validate it (the report) as well as their own selves in the execution of the report or study as a direct or indirect part of the overall social gathering and environment. According to Altheide and Johnson (1994), an effective and high-quality ethnography is one that "shows the hand of the ethnographer" (p. 493). Ethnography is a qualitative research type that encompasses the volunteer's or examiner's remark.

Another reason for choosing qualitative research over quantitative research is also this: the respondents who answer the queries of the researcher are treated the same way as the "research subjects" and their reactions are taken in the quantitative report with only the minor difference that equivalency is an achievable aim in the latter and not so in the former. The former aims to seek out the real social differences and help people learn from their close observation and analysis. One of the best examples to explain this particular phenomenon was given by Meredith Gall, Walter Borg, and Joyce Gall (1996). According to their example, a research that is carried out to assess the number of students who got "A" grades in their class through the observation of the gold stars given could entail many different responses. In a quantitative report, the gold stars would simply be taken as the representation of a certain achieved paramount level of intelligence or caliber in the subject or class; whereas in a qualitative report when the researcher addresses the feelings of the teacher and the pupils involved, he/she could end up getting very different reactions to the same object! For instance, the teacher could see the gold stars as a representation of the effort put in by a pupil and how the hard work has improved his work by leaps and bounds from previous works; upon asking the students, some would say that the gold start representing their surpassing their classmates on certain abilities, other will feel that they represented a lack of more definitive and explanatory comment from the teacher (Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996).

Research Design

Ethnography will be used in our research design as the aim with which it will be included in the research design will help us by working and analyzing as an investigative factor to help construct a holistic and intricate comprehension and analysis of the social problem at hand. I (the researcher) will be the definitive factor during the data compilation process of the research. Also, when carrying out qualitative research on the educational set up, the whole research will be accompanied by a thoughtful and vivid explanation with the process being the focal point. As Campbell (1997) remarks that, "[They] assume reality is socially constructed and that variables are complex, interwoven, and difficult to measure. The researcher seeks the insider's point-of-view and is personally involved in the process (Campbell, 1997, p. 125)."

The central focus for any qualitative study and the method used in it is to explore and present the differing points-of-views and meanings of the respondents when observed or put in certain situations. All qualitative researchers aim to give an unraveling breakdown and explanation of the research topic through employing different modes of studying, some are engrossed in the post-contemporary arguments of the characteristics of legitimacy in researches (Goldman-Segall, 1995; Lather, 1986; Maxwell, 1992; Peshkin, 1993), while some concentrate on the aftermath of the structure they have chosen when they become a part of the overall social setting (Heisenberg, 1958), while there are some researchers who are more concerned with the facts of the story and their true depiction and representation (Barone, 1992; Carter, 1993; Clifford & Marcus, 1986; Eisner, 1991; Tyler, 1986; Wolcott, 1990), and then there are some who prefer the natural/environmental structures and their influence (Geertz, 1973; Hammersley & Atkinson, 1983),.

Another positive point about including a qualitative pattern of study in the research is that it includes numerous choices of questioning for the applicant counting cultural studies, psychoanalytic, case study, deconstructionist, phenomenological, ethnographic, feminist and hermeneutical (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994). Mainly, in qualitative research, the examiners utilize the facility of interviews and general observations for the data collection using various instruments like papers, pens, video or voice recorders, etc. They then assess and decipher the data they have collected by using different tools. The main aim of a qualitative data is to reach authenticated conclusions through persuasive explanations, structural legality, etc.

Ethnography is perhaps one of the most significant divisions in the process of qualitative research as it portrays the real cultural norms of the social setting it is studying. Hammersley and Atkinson (1983) very profoundly explained ethnography as a "part of the social world it studies" (p. x). They further went on to say:

"We act in the social world and yet are able to reflect upon ourselves and our actions as objects in that world. By including our own role within the research focus and systematically exploiting our participation in the world under study as researchers, we can develop and test theory without placing reliance on the futile appeals to empiricism, of either positivist or naturalistic varieties, (Hammersley and Atkinson, 1983, p. 25)"

In context with qualitative research, the ethnographers are mainly post-positivists bringing their own viewpoints and judgments in the vanguard of the conclusions and data analyses. All forms of text, video or audio are used to authenticate and prove the happening of an incident to the reader of the report. One of the easiest and most genius parts of the qualitative research procedure is the assignment of signs or symbols to the different topics in the research after the data collection and assortment is complete. This can be used as an alternative to gathering the data in groups, to observe the patterns that emerge, to reach the final conclusions. Any generalization made will be a complete antonym of the original and only goal of this form of research, all the knowledge gained is thereof used to station a stronger bond of communication between the different communities (Geertz, 1973) i.e. commensurability.

The result achieved through the process of ethnography has numerous advantages too. One being that all the researchers or ethnographers work together as a team to come up with the most authentic and practical conclusions. Plus, the studiers do tend to revisit the original site of investigation to confirm whether their input was included in the overall analysis, sometimes, the participants or respondents end up becoming a definite part of the overall process of data collection, verification, analysis and conclusions as well. This has very interesting and vibrant affects on the overall view of a respondent who can analyze his own learning habits and allow himself to become more aware of the numerous options available, as a result they become an analyst of their own nature and characteristic and start thinking like an epistemologist. This procedure of contemplation (Schon, 1991) on one's own personal mode of learning further grows into reflexion that Hammersley and Atkinson (1983) described as a validated and helpful communication opportunity within a cultural setting.

Sampling Unit

This study seeks to present the opinions of students related to for-profit and non-profit educational institutions. Initially, 600 college students currently studying at Boston University (for-profit university) and Boston State College (non-profit university), will be contacted by visiting the university campus over a period of one week. All members will be informed about the research and will be requested to participate in it by filling out a consent form.

Sampling Frame

Two aspects will be taken into consideration when selecting the sampling frame for analysis. Firstly, all students should be enrolled in the final year of their degree; secondly, Students should have a maintained a minimum GPA of 3.2 throughout their academic pursuit.

Method of selecting the sample elements

Stratified random sampling will be used in this study. Participants will be divided into 2 groups. The first group will consist of students who are studying in a non-profit State college (Boston State College). The second group will consist of students who are studying in a for-profit university (Boston University). The response of the first 200 students in each group will be taken and used in the survey.

Participants

In this research I have chosen 400 students, divided in 2 groups, currently enrolled in Boston University and Boston State College, respectively. This has been done so as to not only offer proportional data but also provide the other researchers some preliminary results of interest.

Data Collection

Data will be collected online allowing me to record the response of the subjects related to their educational experience. Since the survey will be carried out online, participants will have the option of choosing the location. This survey will be founded on a pre-written questionnaire that will set the agenda for their opinions. It will take about 10 minutes for each group to fill out a survey, and the topic will be the attitude of students towards non-profit and for-profit educational institutions.

Scale Development

Likert scale will be used in this study. It is a psychometric response measuring scale and is quite often utilized in surveys. When replying to a survey using Likert scale, subjects will state their intensity of agreement/disagreement to a particular question/statement (Hanneke, 2000). In our survey subjects will be given six options, namely, (1) strongly agree, (2) slightly agree, (3) quite agree, (4) quite disagree, (5) slightly disagree, (6) strongly disagree

Data analysis

We utilized "Hierarchical Linear Model" so as to produce one-level "Hierarchical Linear Model." Bryk & Raudenbush (1992) refers to such models as "random-coefficient-regression-model," or "mixed-effects-model," (Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992). Littell, Milliken, Stroup, & Wolfinger (1996) assert that such models are corresponding to not only "hierarchical-linear-models" but also "multilevel-linear-models" (Littell, Milliken, Stroup, & Wolfinger, 1996). In addition, Kreft, DeLeeuw, & Van Der Leeden (1994) assert that "Hierarchical Linear Model" gives similar results as many other highly-admired statistical software programs, for example, "ML4" and/or "PROC-SAS-MIXED" (Kreft, DeLeeuw, & Van Der Leeden, 1994) and is perfect for unraveling multilevel outcomes. The Hierarchical Linear Models designed in this study will be assessed using Regression analysis. Regression analysis will assist us in comparing the means by breaking up the overall perceived variance into various portions.

Dependent Variable

The dependent variable in our analysis is the attitude of students towards non-profit and for-profit educational institutions.

Independent Variables

Civic contributions of students

Financial proportion of for-profit and non-profit educational institution

Standard of Job opportunities after Graduation

Aims and objectives behind for-profit Educational institution

Aims and objectives behind non-profit Educational institution

Criterion of Admission

Education Standards

Questionnaires

The purpose of the questionnaire is to measure the attitude of students towards non-profit and for-profit educational institutions. We have itemized the general purpose of the research into (1) Civic contributions of students; (2) Financial proportion of the for-profit and non-profit educational institution; (3) Standard of Job opportunities after Graduation; (4) Aims and objectives behind for-profit Educational institution; (5) Aims and objectives behind non-profit Educational institution; (6) Criterion of Admission (7) Education Standards, which are our independent variables.

Since the outlook of the questionnaire is considered vitally significant, the questionnaire has been designed to look not only easy, but also appealing and interesting instead of complex, imprecise, threatening and mind-numbing. The respondents will be introduced to the purpose of a questionnaire before being surveyed, so that they can become more occupied in it and might associate with it. Furthermore, in order to ensure that the time taken-up by this questionnaire is approximately 10 minutes, we have limited the survey to 7 questions (Cohen, 2000). These questions are as follows:

Civic contributions of students

Subjects will be asked about the manner in which their education has assisted them in understanding their civic responsibilities. They will be presented with this statement, "I believe that my education has helped me in recognizing and acting on my civic responsibilities towards my society and country" on six-point Likert scale. This is because Peterson, Augustine, Einarson, and Vaughan (1999) argue that American students are less inclined towards civic contributions than their European counterparts. They blame American education system for this weakness.

Financial proportion of for-profit and non-profit educational institution

Subjects will be asked about the manner in which their government can assist them financially. They will be presented with this statement, "I believe that the government needs to increase the total financial aid expenditure allocated for education without decreasing the percentage of funds assigned to non-profit institutions" on six-point Likert scale. This is because Phipps et al. (2000) reveals that the government is increasing the funds for students studying in for-profit institutions at the cost of students in non-profit institutions.