The False Claims Act
THE FALSE CLAIMS ACT
Proprietary education dates back to the late nineteenth century where institutions focused on professional training in teaching, medicine, and law (Breneman, Pusser, &ump; Turner, S., 2000). The 1972 Higher Education Reauthorization Act included for-profit institutions in federal financial aid programs and changed the vernacular of higher education to postsecondary education (2000). This piece of legislation along with new technologies along with increased demand for higher education and prompted a resurgence of for-profit institutions in the latter half of the twentieth century (2000). From these changes, a new era of postsecondary education was born
According to Turner (2006), for-profit institutions are more responsive to the changes in the external environment and are able to capitalize on new opportunities. The growth among for-profit institutions can be attributed to their ability for geographic variation and catering to the need of non-traditional students for increased educational access. The geographic variation references the inability of non-for-profit educational institutions to adjust to changes in state, regional, and local demand due to political and social forces. For-profits' flexibility in their governance structure, sensitivity to market conditions, and the ability to generate investment capital through public and private means allow them to establish themselves in new and emerging markets regardless of career and location. Also, for-profit institutions are able to conceptualize the geographic boundaries of education that constrain traditional educational institutions. Therefore, for-profit hold a competitive advantage over non-profit institutions in attracting the expanding market of the aforementioned non-traditional students through flexible educational offerings (e.g. time and duration of classes and programs) as well as convenient locations (e.g. online or accessible locations).
According to Floyd (2007) argued
Proprietary education dates back to the late nineteenth century where institutions focused on professional training in teaching, medicine, and law (Breneman, Pusser, &ump; Turner, S., 2000). The 1972 Higher Education Reauthorization Act included for-profit institutions in federal financial aid programs and changed the vernacular of higher education to postsecondary education (2000). This piece of legislation along with new technologies along with increased demand for higher education and prompted a resurgence of for-profit institutions in the latter half of the twentieth century (2000). From these changes, a new era of postsecondary education was born
According to Turner (2006), for-profit institutions are more responsive to the changes in the external environment and are able to capitalize on new opportunities. The growth among for-profit institutions can be attributed to their ability for geographic variation and catering to the need of non-traditional students for increased educational access. The geographic variation references the inability of non-for-profit educational institutions to adjust to changes in state, regional, and local demand due to political and social forces. For-profits' flexibility in their governance structure, sensitivity to market conditions, and the ability to generate investment capital through public and private means allow them to establish themselves in new and emerging markets regardless of career and location. Also, for-profit institutions are able to conceptualize the geographic boundaries of education that constrain traditional educational institutions. Therefore, for-profit hold a competitive advantage over non-profit institutions in attracting the expanding market of the aforementioned non-traditional students through flexible educational offerings (e.g. time and duration of classes and programs) as well as convenient locations (e.g. online or accessible locations).
According to Floyd (2007) argued