The Fork in the Road: Determining Factors for Diverse Students Choosing a Non-profit, Open-Access Institution Versus a For- Profit, Open-Access Institution

Community colleges and for-profit institutions are considered open-access
institutions and serve a large proportion of the United States student population.
Furthermore, research confirms that students who are minorities, disadvantaged, and
nontraditional attend these institutions in greater numbers than highly selective
institutions. However, little is known about how these students choose between these
two types of open-access institutions. The purpose of this study was to acquire a deeper
understanding of the discriminating factors that influence these pathways and determine a
predictive model of choice that is generalizable to undergraduate students choosing to
attend open-access institutions. The study used the undergraduate portion of the 2011-
2012 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:12) as its data source.
NPSAS:12 contains a sample of about 95,000 undergraduate and about 16,900 graduate students enrolled between July 1, 2011 and June 30, 2012 in approximately 1,690 Title
IV-eligible institutions of higher education in the 50 states and the District of Columbia.
The results of the study indicate that the odds are higher for students attending for-profit
colleges and universities than public two-year colleges to: be female; have independent
status (24 years of age or older); have dependents; be Black or African American,
Hispanic or Latino, American Indian and Alaska Native, or Native Hawaiian/other
Pacific Islander; use higher amounts of financial aid; either not have a job or work
fulltime; be less likely to attend college part-time; have higher college GPAs; and attend
larger institutions. When restricting the sample for at-risk and non-traditional students,
the odds for Hispanic and Latino and American Indian or Alaska Native students
attending FPCUs increased, whereas the odds of Black or African American students
attending FPCUs decreased. The results, implications for policy and practice, and
recommendations for future research are discussed.