FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W175686274> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W175686274 startingPage "2" @default.
• W175686274 abstract "College choice has been an area of inquiry in higher education research for decades. While this scholarship has evolved, it has yet to incorporate the fastest-growing sector of higher education: for-profit colleges and universities. The authors investigate the admissions and recruitment conditions that would lead students- particularly those from low-income backgrounds-to consider a for-profit college over a community college. Specifically, the paper considers information provided to prospective students by several for-profit and community colleges in an urban city. On the basis of this research, conclusions and future directions for college choice theory and organizational practice are developed.THE recent proliferation and politicization of for-profit colleges has prompted important scholarly exploration (Kinser zoo6; Rosenbaum, Deil-Amen and Person 2009; Ruch 2001; Tierney and Hentschke 2007). Of current concern is the growing number of students- particularly low-income students of color-enrolling at for-profit institutions that could place them at considerable risk for debt (Chung 2012; Garrity, Garrison and Fiedler 2010; Hing 2012; Ruch 2001). Comparable degrees typically could be acquired at a community college for significantly less money. One possible interpretation is that for-profit colleges trick customers into buying a poor product. The purpose of this paper is to investigate this notion and to suggest that such an interpretation may be simplistic. We called upon the student choice literature to focus on one particular part of the decision to attend an institution: the entry point. Over the course of three months, we called five community colleges and five for-profit institutions to gauge how they responded to a prospective student. Rather than suggest that one institution is good and another bad, we suggest instead that how institutions engage with prospective students is in part a reflection of the culture and ideology of the institution and may affect prospective students' choice of which college to attend.Accordingly, we review the literature on college choice, focusing on students' initial engagement and how they construct going to college. Our intent is to explore commonalities and differences between for-profit colleges and universities (fpcus) and public community colleges as they pertain to admissions practices. We begin by providing a brief background of the college student choice literature. In the second part of this paper, we explore the missions and admissions practices of fpcus and community colleges. We then present results from a case study that investigates information presented to a prospective student by several fpcus and community colleges. We conclude with new considerations relevant to the future direction of college choice and admissions research on for-profit and community colleges.STUDENT COLLEGE CHOICEWhether to attend an institution of postsecondary education and which institution to attend are two of the most important decisions prospective students make (Johnson and Chapman 1979). These decisions are guided by the quality of information prospective students gather. Hossler and Gallagher (1987) define college choice as a process or stage(s) students go through to determine which college to attend. Models of college decision making generally examine the stages that lead to a choice. Hossler and Gallagher (1987) identify three critical stages: (1) predisposition, in which the person makes a decision to attend college, (2) search, wherein a person begins to seek information about colleges and narrows his alternatives, and (3) choice, during which the student considers alternatives and decides which college to attend. This particular model emphasizes the role of the student rather than the institution in the decision-making process.Hossler, Schmit, and Vesper (1999) updated this model to include information-gathering, information-processing, and decision-making activity. …" @default.
• W175686274 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W175686274 creator A5048915550 @default.
• W175686274 creator A5051098294 @default.
• W175686274 date "2013-04-01" @default.
• W175686274 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W175686274 title "A COMPARISON OF For-Profit and Community Colleges' ADMISSIONS PRACTICES" @default.
• W175686274 cites W1606568256 @default.
• W175686274 cites W2009458825 @default.
• W175686274 cites W2306746823 @default.
• W175686274 cites W2418923624 @default.
• W175686274 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
• W175686274 type Work @default.
• W175686274 sameAs 175686274 @default.
• W175686274 citedByCount "7" @default.
• W175686274 countsByYear W1756862742013 @default.
• W175686274 countsByYear W1756862742014 @default.
• W175686274 countsByYear W1756862742015 @default.
• W175686274 countsByYear W1756862742016 @default.
• W175686274 countsByYear W1756862742017 @default.
• W175686274 countsByYear W1756862742019 @default.
• W175686274 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W175686274 hasAuthorship W175686274A5048915550 @default.
• W175686274 hasAuthorship W175686274A5051098294 @default.
• W175686274 hasConcept C10138342 @default.
• W175686274 hasConcept C120527767 @default.
• W175686274 hasConcept C120912362 @default.
• W175686274 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W175686274 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W175686274 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W175686274 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W175686274 hasConcept C162853370 @default.
• W175686274 hasConcept C175444787 @default.
• W175686274 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W175686274 hasConcept C181622380 @default.
• W175686274 hasConcept C2778061430 @default.
• W175686274 hasConcept C39549134 @default.
• W175686274 hasConcept C50522688 @default.
• W175686274 hasConceptScore W175686274C10138342 @default.
• W175686274 hasConceptScore W175686274C120527767 @default.
• W175686274 hasConceptScore W175686274C120912362 @default.
• W175686274 hasConceptScore W175686274C144024400 @default.
• W175686274 hasConceptScore W175686274C144133560 @default.
• W175686274 hasConceptScore W175686274C15744967 @default.
• W175686274 hasConceptScore W175686274C162324750 @default.
• W175686274 hasConceptScore W175686274C162853370 @default.
• W175686274 hasConceptScore W175686274C175444787 @default.
• W175686274 hasConceptScore W175686274C17744445 @default.
• W175686274 hasConceptScore W175686274C181622380 @default.
• W175686274 hasConceptScore W175686274C2778061430 @default.
• W175686274 hasConceptScore W175686274C39549134 @default.
• W175686274 hasConceptScore W175686274C50522688 @default.
• W175686274 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W175686274 hasLocation W1756862741 @default.
• W175686274 hasOpenAccess W175686274 @default.
• W175686274 hasPrimaryLocation W1756862741 @default.
• W175686274 hasRelatedWork W1519397852 @default.
• W175686274 hasRelatedWork W154048173 @default.
• W175686274 hasRelatedWork W1576453519 @default.
• W175686274 hasRelatedWork W1608795050 @default.
• W175686274 hasRelatedWork W1784804435 @default.
• W175686274 hasRelatedWork W2000927057 @default.
• W175686274 hasRelatedWork W2036254951 @default.
• W175686274 hasRelatedWork W2044574758 @default.
• W175686274 hasRelatedWork W2071749159 @default.
• W175686274 hasRelatedWork W2089364368 @default.
• W175686274 hasRelatedWork W2093361904 @default.
• W175686274 hasRelatedWork W211277366 @default.
• W175686274 hasRelatedWork W2464458153 @default.
• W175686274 hasRelatedWork W2540839211 @default.
• W175686274 hasRelatedWork W2784415939 @default.
• W175686274 hasRelatedWork W282961868 @default.
• W175686274 hasRelatedWork W289717424 @default.
• W175686274 hasRelatedWork W2992263280 @default.
• W175686274 hasRelatedWork W305341292 @default.
• W175686274 hasRelatedWork W3122920886 @default.
• W175686274 hasVolume "88" @default.
• W175686274 isParatext "false" @default.
• W175686274 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W175686274 magId "175686274" @default.
• W175686274 workType "article" @default.