Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Arne Duncan: With New Rules, For-Profit Schools Need to be 35% Effective
Late may be better than never, but is something always better than nothing? That’s what student advocates are left wondering now after the Department of Education released its final and long-awaited “gainful employment” rule aimed at regulating the for-profit school industry on Thursday.
After a ten-month delay triggered by the deluge of 90,000 public comments sent to the Department of Education over the much-contested regulation, the new rule, which carried with it the biggest implications for for-profit schools’ continued revenue streams, is significantly weaker than what student advocates had in mind.
The new rule is the last in a multi-year effort to reign in the for-profit schools industry, which is the the fastest growing sector of the higher education world. For-profit schools are responsible for 12 percent of the nation’s post-secondary school students, but those students are also taking out 26 percent of the nation’s student loans right now. For-profit school students also account for 43 percent of the nation’s student loan defaults. The statistics led the Obama administration to pass thirteen new updated rules in October to try to clean up the industry, but there was always one, which threatened a primary source of for-profit schools’ revenue, that remained unfinalized, until now.
Under the finalized rule, which goes into effect July 2012, for-profit schools and certificate programs at non-profit colleges and universities could become ineligible for their students’ federal student aid if they fail to meet a set of three tests three times within a four-year period: if at least 25 percent of former students are paying their loans (which the Department of Education defines as reducing their loan balance by at least $1); if a former student’s annual loan repayment is not more than 12 percent of her actual earnings or 30 percent more than her discretionary income. Put another way, for-profit schools only need to clear one of these hurdles in order to keep on pocketing their students’ financial aid and federal student loan money
“We’re asking companies that get up to 90 percent of their profits from taxpayer dollars to be at least 35 percent effective,” Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said, of the new rules.
Still, student advocates have welcomed the new lenient and watered-down rule with weary relief.
“While the rule does not include many important protections urged by civil rights, student, women’s, labor and consumer organizations, it sends a strong message to many for-profit career education programs to start putting students first,” said Nancy Zirkin, executive vice president of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.
Zirkin said that regulating the for-profit schools industry was especially important because they tend to serve students who are poor, people of color, women or first-generation college goers.
“Regulation is urgently needed to hold these institutions accountable given the rising tide of debt and default rates faced by students enrolled in for-profit programs - a majority of whom are women, minorities, low-income individuals, veterans and service members. For-profit colleges are a viable option for many of these students, but that doesn’t give these businesses the right to exploit those they serve.
Indeed, students of color are disproportionately among those who enroll in for-profit schools, which have lured students in with false promises of future career prospects that haven’t materialized, often because the shadiest of for-profit schools’ programs are unaccredited or are poor training programs for the careers they’re supposed to send graduates into. And students of color are more likely to depend on financial aid to get through school, but also four times as likely as their peers to eventually default on their loans because they don’t have the family and social networks to help ease them through the lean early years, which are getting tougher and tougher to navigate these days for all graduates.
For for-profit schools, the problem was not just that they were sending students into a poor job market, it’s that schools were pocketing students’ federal aid money, even when they knew full well that they were sending many students into almost certain default. A Government Accountability Office investigation found last year that fifteen out of fifteen randomly chosen for-profit schools also engaged in some kind of fraud or deception in order to help students lie on financial aid forms in order to qualify for more federal student aid money—that they school would pocket and the student would be locked into repaying for a lifetime. It was what some education researchers called the subprime mortgage crisis again in the making.
But the industry spent millions on lobbying, and was able to sway key lawmakers of color to advocate against regulation of the industry. On Thursday, the industry was still cranky about the new lenient rules.
“We remain very concerned that the gainful employment regulation, while reflecting the fact that the Department has listened to the sector and made changes to its initial proposal, is still using the same ill-advised metric approach to this matter and is clearly outside of its statutory authority,” the industry organization, the Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities said in a statement. “Notwithstanding the changes, the real question is how the regulation will impact students, particularly non-traditional students served by our institutions.”
“This year alone, taxpayers are expected to underwrite more than $30 billion in federal loans and more than $9 billion in Pell Grants to students attending for-profit career colleges,” said Pauline Abernathy, the vice president of The Institute for College Access and Success, an education and student advocacy group. “However, the evidence is clear that many of these programs are fleecing both taxpayers and students.”
“Unfortunately the final rule will allow many programs that over-charge and under-deliver to continue to receive federal student aid.”
The stocks of most for-profit schools have taken deep hits in the last year as they await the gainful employment rule, but on the day it dropped, many corporations saw their stocks rally back with big gains. The sector, it seems, is still confident it can keep making money just fine with the new Department of Education rules, too.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


14 Comments so far
Show AllIf the For-Profit higher education business model makes sense, why does it need to depend on students getting federal loans?
When the industry started, the University of Phoenix ran graduate business programs for people who already had jobs - so they could pay the high tutition. When people in the industry realized that undergraduates could use loans from the government to pay tuittion, undergrad programs proliferated.
But these programs exist only because of the availability of the loans. Why does private enterprise need federal assistance? Can't they provide services that students can afford?
This business model makes sense only to those who want to privatize profits and socialize risks.
The rate of increase in tuition and other higher education costs didn't exceed the consumer price index annual inflation rate until the government started loaning money for education during the 1960s. Since then the rate of inflation for education costs has risen exponentially with each passing year.
The cost of anything that can be insured, financed through loans, or is tax deductible (real estate, cars, education, etc.) will experience higher inflation than things that can't be insured, financed or deducted.
Stop loaning money for education and the price will drop significantly.
"Stop loaning money for education and the price will drop significantly."
Right, and the one way to stop loaning money without unfairly excluding millions of people is to make higher education free.
Health care should be free to fulfill health needs.
Water should be a free resource from the earth to all life.
More..
I like the idea of free higher education. The one thing though is that many universities have had intellectual freedom on account of being somewhat independently funded (even if a lot of the money comes in through government loan monies). Free education may make universities more like k-12 schools where there is more content control. Then again, a lot of the big research institutions are bankrolled by corporate money so academia is being tainted more and more by outside money. It's hard to say whether government or corporate propaganda is worse.
Great point. That's it exactly. Let them sink or swim on their own merits without being able to access student loan monies and quality will improve overnight.
Cal State LA only has a graduation rate of 34%, thats the official figure they report to the government( graduation rates are displayed clearly when a student fills out a application for financial aid ). Thats a public state funded school , to be fair I think this standard should be applied universally( or for public schools a giant red warning should be displayed on the FASA application, something like " THIS SCHOOL HAS A GRADUATION RATE OF LESS THEN 35% , EVEN IF YOU ARE OF THE 65% WHO WONT GRADUATE YOU STILL HAVE TO PAY BACK ANY LOANS YOU TAKE OUT."
)
Anyway , this statement is uninformed .
""Stop loaning money for education and the price will drop significantly."
Right, and the one way to stop loaning money without unfairly excluding millions of people is to make higher education free."
No you can't just make school free , if a silly Art Trade school wants to charge 30,000$ a year, I have no right to tell students not to go there . Go ahead, waste your money. For me, I went to community for 2 years and my total cost to get my BA will be something like 24k( 10k if I decide to go to a different state school) . America is unique in that the high school flunkie gets another chance . Europe isn't like that, their are no community colleges to try again . Ether you make it into college after high school or society doesn't feel like wasting money on educating you further . So someone like me, who wasn't the best high school student, would be forever excluded from high education. The community college system gave me another chance at a better life, all for 26$ a unit !
I see tons of students from nations with "free" colleges coming to my local community college here in the USA . Their paying something like 300$ a unit to attend a school I go to for next to nothing . We have the best higher education system in the world, just keep funding state schools( keeping up with rising enrollment ) and things will work out .
In today's San Francisco Chronicle, the headline says: "Wall Street likes the for-profit colleges' new rules."
"New federal regulations -- intneded to rein in for-profit career colleges that promises good jobs to graduates but often leave them unemployed and swimming in debt -- have sent the colleges' stocks soaring on news that sanctions will be delayed three years to 2015 and are more lenient than expected."
Anything that gets people deeper in debt that they can't pay is good news to Wall Street.
This is the typical free giveaway to the wealthy who constantly cheat us. If the numbers are that bad why give them anything or they have to reach real goals.
If we want to rank teachers and then fire them on some made up stuff why not do the same to the private for profit schools. Fair for one, fair for all should be the rule of the day.
If this is a true capitalist society the rule should be if it does not pencil out, don't do it. If you have that high of a failure rate it is a FAILURE. DO NOT SUPPORT FAILURE. When will we learn.
The Chicago School of Economics gave us the financial crash of almost the entire planet. Now the Chicago School of Education's failed policies both financially and educationally are being passed down to all through Obama and Duncan who were both failures in education and school financial affairs in Chicago. Do not forget that since 1995 Obama was the president of the Annenburg Foundation for Chicago Schools until he ran for the U.S. Senate. They spent in 6-7 years about $360 million in Chicago schools. Their own report shows that nothing was accomplished. Duncan helped put the district into its trememdous debt. Their financial problems per student are 9X worse than LAUSD and they are a mess.
THEY WANT CAPITALISM. LET'S GIVE IT TO THEM. WORK FOR IT.
The oligarchy wants a dumb, passive, easy to exploit people that it can turn against themselves, not an educated one that understands its oppression. The super-rich want a nation of sheep and thus far, they have one.
The nicaraguana dictator Samoza was asked why he didnt have public education. His answer:
I want oxen not men.
Applies to the oligarch kleptocracy formerly known as the USA.
Typical obummer bullshit - say one thing and deliver a oligarch enriching policy behind the scenes. How many stories do we need to read about before the left accepts the reality the obomber is a republican sent to deliver all the policies the repub in name politicians can't.
On another note - in oregon the college system pumps out 2500 grads w a masters in education - thousands of others graduate w an undergrad in education yearly - too bad less than 600 were hired - so around 10-15% of education grads can find a job.
Can you say Overpopulation.
We might as well admit there are simply too many people for the number of jobs this country can produce.
Expect to work longer for less and less - all the while being forced into debt slavery for a degree you'll likely never apply.
But we're Winning in America! In the race to the bottom.
Enough of this "for profit" bullshit!
For profit is no good for anybody but the people making the profit. Everybody else loses. There is no such thing as a free market in a global world. It's all rigged so the big players get it all and they're destroying the planet as they're getting it.