

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
The Department of Education advanced their gainful employment rule that targets for-profit colleges and vocational programs who have successfully used public money through grants and student loans to increase their business, while delivering little of value to students.
"The rule effectively would shut down for-profit programs that repeatedly fail to show, through certain measures, that graduates are earning enough to pay down the loans taken out to attend those programs. Advocates say it addresses the chief complaint against for-profit schools, that students emerge from them with too much debt and too little earning power.
'The quality here has been very uneven,' Education Secretary Arne Duncan said of the industry Wednesday in a conference call with reporters. 'There have been some absolute superstars. And there have been some players whose intentions, quite frankly, we doubt.'
The 3 million students in for-profit schools have already felt an impact. In anticipation of the rule, large for-profit providers have slowed enrollment, tightened entry standards and warned students against excessive debt."
Students at for-profit colleges make up 12% of the total college population, but commit half of the student loan defaults. Something had to change here.
For-profit colleges must now pass three tests in order for their qualified students to become eligible for federal grants and student loans, which is how the bulk of students at these colleges get the money to enroll. At least 35% of former students must be actively paying down their loans. Graduates must be spending less than 30% of their discretionary income on loan payments. And they must spend less than 12% of total income on loan payments.
The main concession to the industry in the rule is a multi-year grace period for the colleges before they lose access to federal funding through loans and grants. Previously, the for-profits would have lost this power immediately after failing the three tests; now they get until 2015 to improve their programs, and could only lose funding after that if they fail the test three times in four years.
I don't think they need a grace period. But at the root, this is about an industry propped up with government money (90% of their profits come from federal aid) preying on a vulnerable population: poor and minority students who trust that they will benefit from matriculating. They mainly end up with a lot of debt, financed by the government, funneled from them into the bank accounts of the for-profit colleges. The Administration faced a lot of pressure from Congress - members of both parties - not to promulgate this rule, and they had to put up with a lot of silly scandalmongering from allegedly liberal activists bought off by the indudstry. I'm glad they stood relatively strong and protected students who were getting ripped off.
The New York Times has more.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
The Department of Education advanced their gainful employment rule that targets for-profit colleges and vocational programs who have successfully used public money through grants and student loans to increase their business, while delivering little of value to students.
"The rule effectively would shut down for-profit programs that repeatedly fail to show, through certain measures, that graduates are earning enough to pay down the loans taken out to attend those programs. Advocates say it addresses the chief complaint against for-profit schools, that students emerge from them with too much debt and too little earning power.
'The quality here has been very uneven,' Education Secretary Arne Duncan said of the industry Wednesday in a conference call with reporters. 'There have been some absolute superstars. And there have been some players whose intentions, quite frankly, we doubt.'
The 3 million students in for-profit schools have already felt an impact. In anticipation of the rule, large for-profit providers have slowed enrollment, tightened entry standards and warned students against excessive debt."
Students at for-profit colleges make up 12% of the total college population, but commit half of the student loan defaults. Something had to change here.
For-profit colleges must now pass three tests in order for their qualified students to become eligible for federal grants and student loans, which is how the bulk of students at these colleges get the money to enroll. At least 35% of former students must be actively paying down their loans. Graduates must be spending less than 30% of their discretionary income on loan payments. And they must spend less than 12% of total income on loan payments.
The main concession to the industry in the rule is a multi-year grace period for the colleges before they lose access to federal funding through loans and grants. Previously, the for-profits would have lost this power immediately after failing the three tests; now they get until 2015 to improve their programs, and could only lose funding after that if they fail the test three times in four years.
I don't think they need a grace period. But at the root, this is about an industry propped up with government money (90% of their profits come from federal aid) preying on a vulnerable population: poor and minority students who trust that they will benefit from matriculating. They mainly end up with a lot of debt, financed by the government, funneled from them into the bank accounts of the for-profit colleges. The Administration faced a lot of pressure from Congress - members of both parties - not to promulgate this rule, and they had to put up with a lot of silly scandalmongering from allegedly liberal activists bought off by the indudstry. I'm glad they stood relatively strong and protected students who were getting ripped off.
The New York Times has more.
The Department of Education advanced their gainful employment rule that targets for-profit colleges and vocational programs who have successfully used public money through grants and student loans to increase their business, while delivering little of value to students.
"The rule effectively would shut down for-profit programs that repeatedly fail to show, through certain measures, that graduates are earning enough to pay down the loans taken out to attend those programs. Advocates say it addresses the chief complaint against for-profit schools, that students emerge from them with too much debt and too little earning power.
'The quality here has been very uneven,' Education Secretary Arne Duncan said of the industry Wednesday in a conference call with reporters. 'There have been some absolute superstars. And there have been some players whose intentions, quite frankly, we doubt.'
The 3 million students in for-profit schools have already felt an impact. In anticipation of the rule, large for-profit providers have slowed enrollment, tightened entry standards and warned students against excessive debt."
Students at for-profit colleges make up 12% of the total college population, but commit half of the student loan defaults. Something had to change here.
For-profit colleges must now pass three tests in order for their qualified students to become eligible for federal grants and student loans, which is how the bulk of students at these colleges get the money to enroll. At least 35% of former students must be actively paying down their loans. Graduates must be spending less than 30% of their discretionary income on loan payments. And they must spend less than 12% of total income on loan payments.
The main concession to the industry in the rule is a multi-year grace period for the colleges before they lose access to federal funding through loans and grants. Previously, the for-profits would have lost this power immediately after failing the three tests; now they get until 2015 to improve their programs, and could only lose funding after that if they fail the test three times in four years.
I don't think they need a grace period. But at the root, this is about an industry propped up with government money (90% of their profits come from federal aid) preying on a vulnerable population: poor and minority students who trust that they will benefit from matriculating. They mainly end up with a lot of debt, financed by the government, funneled from them into the bank accounts of the for-profit colleges. The Administration faced a lot of pressure from Congress - members of both parties - not to promulgate this rule, and they had to put up with a lot of silly scandalmongering from allegedly liberal activists bought off by the indudstry. I'm glad they stood relatively strong and protected students who were getting ripped off.
The New York Times has more.