Whenever news articles address the “for-profit” verses the “not-for-profit” business models for any industry, I always cringe, because I think most people don’t understand the difference. The “not-for-profit” model can be managed and led by an executive leadership with salaries well into six figures and higher. “Not-for-profit” organizations do not necessarily operate on shoe-string budgets. They simply do not post a “profit” over and above whatever other monies they may pay out. And there are other restrictions too.
So when you hear about the training industry’s “for-profit” companies, don’t be tempted to shout “aha! Greedy jerks! They should be not-for-profit like their more charitable counterparts”, because those counterparts aren’t necessarily as charitable as you might think.
But that aside, there’s no question that there’s been a good amount of invester interest in the “for-profit” training models over the past few years of companies like DeVry.
That’s why a lot of investors got worried when DeVry posted earnings that failed to meet expectations in July of last year. . Those earnings jumped back up in October. 
So which way is the industry going? Forbes Magazine published a report a few days ago looking at a competitor and well known for-profit education, Apollo Group, stating that “[a]nalysts expect decreased profit for Apollo Group”. 
Something to watch as the year progresses.