Private education dates back to the late 19th century, where institutions focused on professional training in teaching, medicine, and law (Breneman, Pusser and Turner, S., 2000). The Higher Education Reauthorization Act of 1972 included for-profit institutions in federal financial aid programs and changed the vernacular of higher education to postsecondary education (2000). This piece of legislation, coupled with new technologies and increased demand for higher education, caused a resurgence of for-profit institutions in the second half of the 20th century (2000). From these changes has come a new era of postsecondary education. According to Turner (2006), for-profit establishments are more responsive to changes in the external environment and are able to take advantage of new opportunities. The growth of for-profit institutions can be attributed to their ability to vary geographically and meet the needs of nontraditional students for increased access to education. Geographic variation refers to the inability of nonprofit educational institutions to adapt to changes in state, regional, and local demand due to political and social forces. For-profit organizations' flexibility in their governance structure, their sensitivity to market conditions, and their ability to generate investment capital through public and private means allow them to establish themselves in new and emerging markets, regardless of be their career and location. Additionally, for-profit institutions are able to conceptualize the geographic boundaries of education that limit traditional educational institutions. Therefore, for-profit organizations hold a competitive advantage over non-profit institutions in attracting the expanding market for the aforementioned non-traditional products...... middle of document ......sed a code of conduct entitled Accountability Standards Conduct and Transparency to Address Critical Concerns (Fain, 2011; The Foundation For Educational Success, 2011). The main issues discussed were banning enrollment-based incentives and disclosing information to students about the “portability of credit and loan counseling” (The Foundation For Educational Success, 2011). Establishments that fail the annual review will lose their “good reputation” (2011). Fain (2011) stated that there were no public, economic, or organizational sanctions associated with noncompliance, other than removal from the Foundation's protective website. Currently, major for-profit educational groups have not signed the code of conduct and only 17 percent of for-profit institutions have agreed to the standards and their enforcement. (2011).