139
Views
1
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Articles

From Commercial Schools to Corporate Universities: Explaining the Shift in Proprietary Business Education in the U.S., 1970–1990

References

  • Aaker, J., Vohs, K., & Mogliner, C. (2010). Non-profits are seen as warm and for-profits as competent: Firm stereotypes matter. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 224–237.
  • Apling, R. N. (1993). Proprietary schools and their students. The Journal of Higher Education, 64(4), 379–416.
  • Bailey, T., Badway, N., & Gumport, P. (2001). For-profit higher education and community colleges. Retrieved from ERIC Database. (ED463824).
  • Bennett, D. L., Lucchesi, A. R., & Vedder, R. K. (2010). For-profit higher education: Growth, innovation, and regulation. The Center for College Affordability and Productivity. Retrieved from www.centerforcollegeaffordability.org/uploads/ForProfit_HigherEd.pdf
  • Blumenstyk, G. (2013, June 16). Nonprofit colleges compete on for-profits' turf. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from chronicle.com/article/For-Profit-Colleges-Consider/139851
  • Breneman, D., Pusser, B., & Turner, S. (2006). Earnings from learning: The rise of for-profit universities. Albany: State University of New York Press.
  • Brint, S., & Karabel, J. (1989). The diverted dream: Community colleges and the promise of education opportunity in America, 1900–1985. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Bureau of Labor Statistics. U.S. Department of Labor. (1962, 1967, 1972, 1977, 1982, 1987, 1992). Occupational outlook handbook. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan.
  • Bureau of Labor Statistics. U.S. Department of Labor. (1998). Employee tenure in 1998. [Press release]. Retrieved from www.bls.gov/news.release/history/tenure_092498.txt
  • Bureau of Labor Statistics. U.S. Department of Labor. (2006). Employee tenure in 2006. [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/tenure_09082006.pdf
  • Bureau of Labor Statistics. U.S. Department of Labor. (2008). Glossary. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/bls/glossary.htm
  • Cappelli, P. (1992). Examining management displacement. Academy of Management Journal, 35(1), 203–217.
  • Carroll, T. H. (1959). A foundation expresses its interest in the higher education for business management. Journal of the Academy of Management, 2(3), 155–167.
  • Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. California: Sage Publications, Inc.
  • Chaloux, B. (1995). State oversight of the proprietary sector. New Directions for Community Colleges, 91(Fall), 81–92.
  • Daniel, C. A. (1998). MBA: The first century. Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell University Press.
  • Davies, S., & Quirke, L. (2007). The impact of sector on school organizations: Institutional and market logics. Sociology of Education, 80(1), 66–89.
  • Deil-Amen, R., & Rosenbaum, J. E. (2004). Charter building and labor market contacts in two-year colleges. Sociology of Education, 77(3), 245–265.
  • DeVry University. (2015). Accredited by the Higher Learning Commission. Retrieved from http://www.devry.edu/academics/accreditation.html
  • Financial needs of students at vocational proprietary schools. Hearing before the special subcommittee on education of the committee on education and labor, House of Representatives, 92nd Cong. 678 (1971) (testimony of Henry E. Bowes). Retrieved from http://congressional.proquest.com/congressional
  • Gigot, Paul. (1981, March 30). Emphasizing the practical, Keller schools are making a business of teaching business. Wall Street Journal, p. 25.
  • Goldstein, Harold. (1999, May). The early history of the Occupational Outlook Handbook. Monthly Labor Review, pp. 3–7.
  • Gordon, R. A., & Howell, J. E. (1959). Higher education for business. New York: Columbia University Press.
  • Hayes, R. H., & Abernathy, W. J. Managing our way to economic decline. Harvard Business Review 86(4), 67–77.
  • Iloh, C., & Tierney, W. G. (2013). A comparison of for-profit and community colleges' admissions practices. College & University, 88(4), 4–12.
  • Iloh C., & Tierney, W. G. (2014). Understanding for-profit college and community college choice through rational choice. Teachers College Record, (116), 1–34.
  • Khurana, R. (2007). From higher aims to hired hands: The social transformation of American business schools and the unfulfilled promise of management as a profession. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Kilman, S. (1987, May 19). Bell & Howell Co. is planning to sell its stake in DeVry. Wall Street Journal, p. 6.
  • Kinser, K. (2006). From Main Street to Wall Street: The transformation of for-profit higher education (ASHE higher education report). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Levy, D. C. (2006). How private higher education's growth challenges the new institutionalism. In H. Meyer & B. Rowan (Eds.), The new institutionalism in education (pp. 143–162). Albany: State University of New York Press.
  • Marvin, C. H. (1922). Commercial education in secondary schools. New York: H. Holt and company.
  • Meyer, H., & Rowan, B. (2006). Institutional analysis and the study of education. In H. Meyer and B. Rowan (Eds.), The new institutionalism in education (pp. 1–14). Albany: State University of New York Press.
  • Meyer, J., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.
  • Miller, J. W., & Hamilton, W. J. (1964). The independent business school in American education. New York: Gregg Division, McGraw-Hill.
  • Noffsinger, J. S. (1950). Business schools in the United States. Washington, DC: National Association & Council of Business Schools.
  • Pfeffer, J., & Fong, C. T. (2002). The end of business schools? Less success than meets the eye. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 1(1), 78–95.
  • Podolny, J. M. (2005). Status signals: A sociological study of market competition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Pontikes, E. G. (2012). Two sides of the same coin: How ambiguous classification affects multiple audiences' evaluations. Administrative Science Quarterly 57(1), 81–118.
  • Rytina, N. F., & Bianchi, S. M. (1984, March). Occupational reclassification and changes in distribution by gender. Monthly Labor Review, pp. 11–17.
  • Sass, S. A. (1982). The pragmatic imagination: A history of the Wharton School, 1881–1981. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
  • Silva, C. (1985, August). College sets up business program. The Prescott Daily Courier, p. 1.
  • Snyder, T. D., & Dillow, S. A. (2013). Digest of education statistics. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
  • Spencer, L. (1991, May 27). Good school story. Forbes Magazine. 304–306
  • Sperling, J. (2000). Rebel with a cause: The entrepreneur who created the UOP and the for-profit revolution in higher education. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
  • Statement of Richard Fulton. Hearing before the special subcommittee on education of the committee on education and labor, House of Representatives, 91st Cong. 912 (1970). Retrieved from http://congressional.proquest.com/congressional
  • Toossi, M. (2005, November). Labor force projections to 2014: Retiring boomers. Monthly Labor Review, pp. 25–44.
  • U.S. Census Bureau. (1952, 1962, 1972, 1982, 1992). Statistical Abstracts of the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
  • U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. (2014). Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/
  • U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2011). For-profit schools: Experiences of undercover students enrolled online. (GAO-12–150). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
  • U.S. Senate. Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. (2012). For profit higher education: The failure to safeguard the federal investment and ensure student success. (S. Prt. 112–37, Volumes 1–4). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
  • Zhao, C. M. (2011). Updated Carnegie classifications show an increase in for-profits: Change in traditional landscape. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Retrieved from http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/newsroom/press-releases/updated-carnegie-classifications

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.