Since the year 1636, when Harvard University posted its first “students accepted” notice, institutions of higher learning have been regarded – and have regarded themselves—as not-for-profit servants. So how is it that, in the moaning-and-groaning maelstrom of the year 2008, traditional colleges and universities are apologizing to staff for cutbacks, while for-profit schools are expanding?
 
In 1995-96 for-profit colleges issued nine percent of all associate degrees.  In 2005-06 they issued 15 percent of all associate degrees.   (Unless otherwise cited, U.S. Dept of Education figures are used throughout.)  That production is despite a visible disparity in tuition prices.  For-profit prices averaged thousands of dollars more than community colleges and state universities. 
 
I’m fortunate enough to live and work in Florida. Apparently many for-profits feel the same way. University of Phoenix, for example, advertises its 15 Florida campuses heavily as its overall enrollment approaches 300,000.  Even the biggest tax-supported public universities are comparative pygmies. But so are most for-profit colleges.

A traditional not-for-profit school has three weapons with which to compete
The first weapon is implicit—we’re not for profit. The very statement sheds negative light on any competitor who is not similarly not for profit.  It's not a particularly clever marketing tactic, but it may be enough to sway an undecided applicant. 

Herschell Gordon Lewis

The second weapon is tradition. Tradition can be illustrated with simple arithmetic.  Number of years in existence or date founded can easily do the trick. 

The third weapon is a list of distinguished alumni.  Few for-profits have had enough history to compile one. This weapon has impact with parents.  If the well-known alumni are sport-related, you have a trump card that works with the entire family. 

Three weapons are available to the for-profits
The first weapon is price—if the competitor is private and non-profit.   A value tweak may be available if a student can achieve results in less time.  Meanwhile, the price weapon won't work well against the giant taxpayer-subsidized schools. That requires a different weapon, coming up next.

The second weapon is individuality. A student won’t be lost in a mob or a succession of large lectures or handed off to a graduate assistant. 

The third weapon is controversial—admissions requirements. Nonprofits consistently accuse the for-profit competition of rounding up enrollments the way cowboys in the Wild West rounded up the dogies, with little attention paid to qualification. When admissions requirements are used effectively by a for-profit who succeeds handily with less qualified students, it is very effective. 

As we lurch deeper into the twenty-first century, some competitive advantages will become more pronounced.  Others will disappear. New ones may emerge.

Herschell Gordon Lewis writes direct response copy in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, for clients worldwide. His website is www.herschellgordonlewis.com.