Postsecondary education in the United States is provided by public, not-forprofit and for-profit institutions. Public and not-for-profit institutions are expected to serve the public good due to state control or chartering requirements; for-profit institutions are not. Therefore, the decision to serve the public good is vested in the board. The for-profit director's role as representative of shareholders' interests does not ensure deference to the public good. Currently, national priorities are aligned with shareholder interests creating an environment ripe for expansion of for-profit education. However, there are implications as national priorities shift to positions that do not complement shareholder interests. Most critically, continued growth of for-profit postsecondary education may lead to a reduction of service of the public good by all institutions. Private institutions (not-for-profit or for-profit) exist in every large country; therefore, a thorough analysis of the legal distinctions among sectors is encouraged to understand the implications of growth.Postsecondary education in the United States (US) is provided by a combination of public, not-for-profit and for-profit institutions in a decentralised system. Over the past 15 years these labels have become less descriptive of operational differences as changes have occurred in all sectors in levels of degrees offered, staffing models, scheduling and distance education (Kinser

This study highlights the changes that have occurred at postsecondary institutions after conversion from not-for-profit to for-profit control. Using Delta Cost Project Data and a pre-post study design with a control group of not-for-profit institutions that did not convert, comparisons are drawn. The findings suggest that institutions that convert experience greater enrollment growth, a decline in fulltime employment levels per full time equivalent (FTE) student, no change in average expenses per FTE student, a decrease in total revenue, a decrease in Pell Grants received, a decrease in tuition and fees revenue, and a decline in average subsidy per student post conversion. These findings are critical to the creation of informed policy decisions regarding institutional conversions.

This study uses multinomial logistic regression models to identify significant predictors of graduation and persistence for veteran and military-affiliated students (n=1,141) at one veteran-friendly, not-forprofit institution. Several statistically significant predictors of graduation and persistence for veteran and military-affiliated students are unique when compared to the literature on the general student population, such as the positive effect of part-time enrollment and the negative effect of continuous enrollment. In addition, comparisons are made among subgroups of the students based on the source of their financial aid (e.g., government, institutional, no veteran or military aid). Distinct policies designed to assist veteran and military-affiliated students are suggested as well as individual policies to support subgroups of these students. Unique institutional policies that may have a positive impact on the subgroups of students include encouragement for part time enrollment for veteran and military-affiliated students who are not using government funded veteran and military aid and assistance with stop outs (temporary withdrawals from higher education) and returns for those using government funded veteran and military aid. Federal policy implications, such as the impact of the 36-month limit on Post 9/11 GI Bill funding, are discussed.

This chapter provides a taxonomy of student veterans in the form of a codebook to assist in institutional data collection and analysis.

The author presents the trends in market share of business student enrollment at public, not-forprofit, and for-profit 4-year-and-above institutions from 1996 to 2008. Although each sector of the institutions has experienced growth in overall enrollments, the relative market share of public and not-for-profit institutions has dropped, whereas the market share held by for-profit institutions has increased to 20% of business students at 4-year-and-above institutions by 2008.The key player institutions in the enrollment of business students in 2008 are presented. The author gives an explanation for the shift in market share and discusses the implications and strategies for response to the changes.