Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

While some for-profit colleges do a good job preparing students at affordable prices, there is overwhelming evidence that many of these schools consistently wreck the financial futures of veterans, single mothers, and others struggling for a better future. These predatory schools use deceptive advertising and recruiting that misleads enrollees about program costs and job placement rates. More than half of the students who sign up, aiming for jobs like medical technician, auto mechanic, or software coder, drop out within about four months. The real cost of tuition and fees can be nearly double that of Harvard. But even the students who graduate often struggle to find jobs beyond the Office Depot shifts they previously held. Last week, the Department of Education reported that 72 percent of the for-profit college programs it analyzed produced graduates who on average earned less than high school dropouts. Not surprisingly, then, for-profit colleges, with 13 percent of U.S. college students, account for nearly half of all student loan defaults.

The Journal, seeking to validate its specious argument that for-profit colleges help low-income students and students of color, cites Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) as a supporter of the industry. It doesn’t mention that Hastings and the other Democrat who strongly opposes rules for the industry, Rob Andrews (D-NJ), have gotten piles of campaign cash from the industry, Hastings at least $54,500 and Andrews at least $78,547 between 2009 and 2013. Hastings took donations from, delivered the commencement address at, and allowed a scholarship to be named after him at, Florida’s FastTrain College, raided by the FBI in 2012 and shut down for systematic fraud. Hastings, before serving in Congress, was impeached and removed from a federal judgeship by Congress in 1989 after being acquitted in court of bribery charges; Andrews is retiring as he faces an ethics investigation regarding personal use of campaign funds.

In addition to Andrews and Hastings, the top recipients of for-profit college campaign money include House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), House education committee chairs John Kline (R-MN) and Virginia Foxx R-NC), and Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-FL), himself the subject of ethics reviews.

The real reason that this predatory industry has so many friends in Washington is that it uses a big chunk of the $30-plus billion it has been raking in annually in taxpayer dollars to buy lobbyists, spinmeisters, and campaign contributions in Washington. It’s corruption, plain and simple. There’s no other good explanation for why so many free market, small-government Republicans oppose efforts to hold these companies accountable. Or why a small group of House Democrats oppose protecting hard-working low-income and middle-class Americans from frauds committed by predatory corporations.

Pwns wrote:I have no problem with cracking down on academic programs and institutions that take in federal money and don't produce anything. Not just at for-profits.

I have to say, though, that I think it's interesting that liberals are decrying the reasoning that these institutions do help a small number of students so you would basically be throwing the baby out with the bath water to clamp down on them. Would these be the same people that will inexorably defend Head Start when studies show the educational benefits of it are gone by second grade?

My gut feeling is that these folks only think ripoff degree programs are predatory when they are a part of for-profits.

WASHINGTON — At a town-hall-style meeting in New Hampshire last month, listeners pressed Mitt Romney on the soaring cost of higher education. His solution: students should consider for-profit colleges like the little-known Full Sail University in Florida.

A week later in Iowa, Mr. Romney offered another unsolicited endorsement for “a place in Florida called Full Sail University.” By increasing competition, for-profit institutions like Full Sail, which focuses on the entertainment field, “hold down the cost of education” and help students get jobs without saddling them with excessive debt, he said.

Mr. Romney did not mention the cost of tuition at Full Sail, which runs more than $80,000, for example, for a 21-month program in “video game art.”

Nor did he mention its spotty graduation rate. Or, for that matter, that its chief executive, Bill Heavener, is a major campaign donor and a co-chairman of his state fund-raising team in Florida.

That team, Mr. Romney said last fall when he appointed Mr. Heavener, “will be crucial to my efforts in Florida and across the country.”

Beyond his fund-raising role, Mr. Heavener has committed his own resources to the cause. He and his wife have each given the maximum $2,500 to the campaign, and he gave $45,000 to Restore Our Future, a “super PAC” run by former Romney aides to bolster his campaign. The chairman of the private equity fund that owns Full Sail University — C. Kevin Landry of TA Associates — gave $40,000 to Restore Our Future, records show.

Mr. Romney has received financial support from other segments of the for-profit college industry as well, and he was quick to praise the industry as an affordable alternative to traditional colleges.

HI54UNI wrote:All the more reason for the feds to get out of the student loan business.

mrklean wrote:

HI54UNI wrote:All the more reason for the feds to get out of the student loan business.

This is why you have the for profit colleges. Student loan money is big business. And they could care less about the Graduation rate.

HI54UNI wrote:

mrklean wrote:
This is why you have the for profit colleges. Student loan money is big business. And they could care less about the Graduation rate.

It's also part of the reason tuition has skyrocketed at supposedly "not for profit" colleges.

HI54UNI wrote:

mrklean wrote:
This is why you have the for profit colleges. Student loan money is big business. And they could care less about the Graduation rate.

It's also part of the reason tuition has skyrocketed at supposedly "not for profit" colleges.

kalm wrote:

HI54UNI wrote:
It's also part of the reason tuition has skyrocketed at supposedly "not for profit" colleges.

Perhaps less people should go to college...similar to less people should own homes.

GannonFan wrote:

HI54UNI wrote:
It's also part of the reason tuition has skyrocketed at supposedly "not for profit" colleges.

Agreed - it's easy to poke fun at the University of Phoenix and other "bad" "for profit" colleges. God forbid we actually look at all the waste and sucking up of student loans that the "good" "not for profit" colleges are doing. The real problem is that all colleges are jacking up tuition in an effort to score as much of the student loan pie as possible. And why wouldn't they? There's no chance that money won't be paid to them and there's no strings attached with regards to graduation or future employment - it's easy money.

kalm wrote:What a racket. 86% of their revenue comes from federal student grants and loans. And of course they're supported by legislators from both sides (IIRC Romney also had strong ties). Of course the WSJ editorial swings and misses on this.

While some for-profit colleges do a good job preparing students at affordable prices, there is overwhelming evidence that many of these schools consistently wreck the financial futures of veterans, single mothers, and others struggling for a better future. These predatory schools use deceptive advertising and recruiting that misleads enrollees about program costs and job placement rates. More than half of the students who sign up, aiming for jobs like medical technician, auto mechanic, or software coder, drop out within about four months. The real cost of tuition and fees can be nearly double that of Harvard. But even the students who graduate often struggle to find jobs beyond the Office Depot shifts they previously held. Last week, the Department of Education reported that 72 percent of the for-profit college programs it analyzed produced graduates who on average earned less than high school dropouts. Not surprisingly, then, for-profit colleges, with 13 percent of U.S. college students, account for nearly half of all student loan defaults.

The Journal, seeking to validate its specious argument that for-profit colleges help low-income students and students of color, cites Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) as a supporter of the industry. It doesn’t mention that Hastings and the other Democrat who strongly opposes rules for the industry, Rob Andrews (D-NJ), have gotten piles of campaign cash from the industry, Hastings at least $54,500 and Andrews at least $78,547 between 2009 and 2013. Hastings took donations from, delivered the commencement address at, and allowed a scholarship to be named after him at, Florida’s FastTrain College, raided by the FBI in 2012 and shut down for systematic fraud. Hastings, before serving in Congress, was impeached and removed from a federal judgeship by Congress in 1989 after being acquitted in court of bribery charges; Andrews is retiring as he faces an ethics investigation regarding personal use of campaign funds.

In addition to Andrews and Hastings, the top recipients of for-profit college campaign money include House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), House education committee chairs John Kline (R-MN) and Virginia Foxx R-NC), and Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-FL), himself the subject of ethics reviews.

The real reason that this predatory industry has so many friends in Washington is that it uses a big chunk of the $30-plus billion it has been raking in annually in taxpayer dollars to buy lobbyists, spinmeisters, and campaign contributions in Washington. It’s corruption, plain and simple. There’s no other good explanation for why so many free market, small-government Republicans oppose efforts to hold these companies accountable. Or why a small group of House Democrats oppose protecting hard-working low-income and middle-class Americans from frauds committed by predatory corporations.

- See more at: http://www.republicreport.org/2014/wall ... MKhiT.dpuf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

GannonFan wrote:

HI54UNI wrote:
It's also part of the reason tuition has skyrocketed at supposedly "not for profit" colleges.

Agreed - it's easy to poke fun at the University of Phoenix and other "bad" "for profit" colleges. God forbid we actually look at all the waste and sucking up of student loans that the "good" "not for profit" colleges are doing. The real problem is that all colleges are jacking up tuition in an effort to score as much of the student loan pie as possible. And why wouldn't they? There's no chance that money won't be paid to them and there's no strings attached with regards to graduation or future employment - it's easy money.

mrklean wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Agreed - it's easy to poke fun at the University of Phoenix and other "bad" "for profit" colleges. God forbid we actually look at all the waste and sucking up of student loans that the "good" "not for profit" colleges are doing. The real problem is that all colleges are jacking up tuition in an effort to score as much of the student loan pie as possible. And why wouldn't they? There's no chance that money won't be paid to them and there's no strings attached with regards to graduation or future employment - it's easy money.

Right now, Im getting a second Masters, but its from a State University. But these Central Southern Utah Tech online stuff is hurting everyone who worked hard for their Degree.

Baldy wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Agreed - it's easy to poke fun at the University of Phoenix and other "bad" "for profit" colleges. God forbid we actually look at all the waste and sucking up of student loans that the "good" "not for profit" colleges are doing. The real problem is that all colleges are jacking up tuition in an effort to score as much of the student loan pie as possible. And why wouldn't they? There's no chance that money won't be paid to them and there's no strings attached with regards to graduation or future employment - it's easy money.

Sounds like they are privatizing the profit and socializing the risk.

Gee....where have I heard that one before????