• December 20, 2014

Investor Who Criticizes For-Profit Colleges Will Help Indebted Student

Sen. Harkin

Courtesy of Yasmine Issa

Yasmine Issa speaks with Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa at last week's Senate hearing on for-profit colleges.

Enlarge Image
close Sen. Harkin

Courtesy of Yasmine Issa

Yasmine Issa speaks with Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa at last week's Senate hearing on for-profit colleges.

Senators skeptical of for-profit education found an ideal poster child for their showdown with the industry last week: a single mother named Yasmine Issa who testified that attending a career college had left her unable to find a job in her field and saddled with debt.

Turns out Ms. Issa will gain more from the experience than a chance to warn others to avoid her fate.

Steven Eisman, a hedge-fund manager who delivered a scathing assessment of for-profit education at the same Senate hearing, announced on Monday that he would pay off Ms. Issa's $17,300 debt.

Monday's news follows an unusual "challenge" that Mr. Eisman laid down after the Senate hearing. The hedge-fund manager had called up a Chronicle reporter on Friday to say he would pay half of Ms. Issa's loans if the Career College Association, a trade group that represents institutions like the one she attended, would cover the other half.

Harris N. Miller, president of the association, did not directly respond to the specifics of Mr. Eisman's challenge when asked for comment by The Chronicle. Instead, he issued a 348-word statement describing how his group is "working with public policy leadership in Washington every day to continue to find ways to improve student-lending policies." He also attacked Mr. Eisman's motives, saying he stands to gain by talking down for-profit colleges at the Senate hearings.

"While one has to have sympathy for any student or former student or parent having problems repaying his/her debts," Mr. Miller wrote in an e-mail, "one also has to have sympathy for the 2.8 million students whose educations Mr. Eisman so blithely and blindly disparages for his own financial benefit."

Mr. Eisman, told of Mr. Miller's reply, said on Monday that he would pay off Ms. Issa's whole debt if he had not heard anything else from the association by the end of the week.

"Clearly CCA cares more about keeping the status quo than helping people harmed by the very bad actors they admit exist," Mr. Eisman said in an e-mail.

The Career College Association reported revenues of $5.4-million in the fiscal year ending June 30, 2008, according to the most recent tax records available. Mr. Miller was paid $325,000 during that period.

'Something So Good ... Out of Something Bad'

Ms. Issa, 28, took out the federal student loans while studying to be an ultrasound technician at a Sanford-Brown Institute campus in White Plains, N.Y., near her home in Yonkers. According to her written testimony, she learned the institute's ultrasound program was not accredited only after completing her studies. Good Housekeeping magazine featured her story in a June article, "School of Hard Knocks." That brought Ms. Issa to the attention of Sen. Tom Harkin's staff, she said, who asked if she would testify during the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee hearing on for-profit colleges.

"I'm in awe," Ms. Issa said Monday in response to Mr. Eisman's offer. "I just never thought that something so good could come out of something bad that I went through."

She added, "It's stressful having to think about paying rent and bills and things for my children, and having a huge loan to pay with interest building up. So this is just definitely a load off my shoulders."

Ms. Issa said she remains determined to find a job in the ultrasound field.

In the Good Housekeeping article, Sanford-Brown's parent company, Career Education Corporation, defended the quality of the institutes' training and declared that "hundreds and hundreds" of graduates had found ultrasound jobs.

Mr. Eisman, who made a fortune betting against subprime mortgages, has emerged recently as a vocal critic of for-profit colleges. In his prepared testimony, he likened for-profit education to the real-estate market before the collapse, with easy credit driving prices ever higher and large defaults looming.

Asked last week whether he would make a lot of money from the collapse of for-profit education companies, he replied: "My investors and I would make money. But that would be dwarfed by the amount of money saved by the taxpayer."

Comments

1. jbwlearner - June 29, 2010 at 09:32 am

My only comment to this...Didn't Ms. Issa do her "due diligence" on the program PRIOR to enrolling??? If she didn't check the accreditation before she enrolled, then she has no one to blame for her situation than herself. I thoroughly checked out my schools' programs before I committed to that kind of money. Even if the program isn't accredited, if it taught her what she needs to know to do the job, then maybe she's not applying herself to finding a job. If she didn't learn the skills she needs to know from the classes she took, then I can see blaming the school. But again...didn't she check first??? It all comes down to PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. What about all the people who've gone to public colleges and don't have jobs? Maybe they should blame the schools, too, and get their debts paid off by this guy. I'm not necessarily a fan of for-profit colleges, but as long as they teach you what you need to know to succeed, then I don't see how they differ from regular private (for-profit) universities. "True" accreditation, however, should be required.

2. lizziec - June 29, 2010 at 09:50 am

@jbwlearner :

I think that one of the primary issues is that the for-profit schools seem to target populations of potential students who very likely have no clue what "due diligence" even means, let alone any concept of the appropriate questions to ask before enrolling. As to this statement: "Even if the program isn't accredited, if it taught her what she needs to know to do the job, then maybe she's not applying herself to finding a job" you are just showing your ignorance.

In health career programs, if you do not attend an accredited school (one where your particular program is accredited through the professional body that oversees the specific training you are undertaking, so there are different accreditation bodies for Ultrasound programs, nursing programs, dental hygiene programs, radiology technician programs,...and so on), then you can be the best ultrasound technologist out there... but you will NOT be able to sit for the national registration/credentialing exam, and therefore, will NOT be able to work in your new profession because for a large majority of these careers, hospitals (and the states they reside in) require that technologists be credentialed (thanks HEAVENS!)

So not being accredited *IS* a major issue and should be disclosed to potential students - along with an explanation about what that means to them - in simple language, dollars, cents and job options. If you spend $17,300 on a program of study that will prepare you to work in a job that you are already eligible to work in by virture of your GED or high school diploma, then you have been robbed. AND,...if the "educators" at that institution did not fully disclose this fact to Ms Issa and others, then they are running a scam, not a school.

3. lizziec - June 29, 2010 at 09:53 am

p.s. hats off to Mr Eisman! After watching the testimony given before the Senate committee and now reading this latest action, he has shown himself to be willing to put his money where his mouth is.... which is more than we can say for a lot of others in this debacle.

4. laker - June 29, 2010 at 10:00 am

Bravo lizziec, I agree that the notion of due diligence is foreign to the population that the less-scrupulous career schools prey on, and the whole jargon of higher education is unfamiliar as well. Matriculation, accreditation, estimated family contribution...these terms are well-known to those of us in the higher education industry, but even many educated families are exploited by schools that blithely say "yes, we're accredited" without taking into account that the question and answer are unrelated.
I have no doubt that Mr. Eisman stands to gain from the positive PR this will earn him, at the same time for-profit schools will not gain the stature they so desperately desire if they don't do a better job of policing themselves and keeping the exploitative operators out.

5. washingtonwarrior - June 29, 2010 at 10:01 am

For-profits take advantage of first generation students who aren't familiar with higher education, financial aid, etc. It does not surprise me these students don't do their "due diligence."

6. larrypowers - June 29, 2010 at 10:02 am

I certaintly agree with the perspective that the for profits seek a market that is not likely to have the know-how to pursue facts and figures surrounding people and institutions who want to rob them. This is the same old game. Those that have take from those who have not.

Larry Powers

7. intered - June 29, 2010 at 10:10 am

This is a cheap trick and nothing more. What has happened to the ability of academics to reason to principles, however near or far they may fall with respect to personal ground? It makes me wonder about the education of many who post in CHE. What would each of you be saying if BP's CEO offered to pay all expenses for a single shrimp boat owner? Don't bother to reply. I have confidence in your ability to bring "honor" to this statistically meaningless PR stunt.

8. claimjumper - June 29, 2010 at 11:34 am

@jbwlearner

Why is it the responsibility of individuals to sniff out institutions that misleading push unaccredited programs in fields that require them for employment? How about a little CORPORATE RESPONSABILITY for once?

Such institutions should be allowed to exist, but they should be held accountable for misleading practices and they definitely should NOT qualify for public financial aid dollars.

9. stevefoerster - June 29, 2010 at 12:37 pm

Oh look, more tired old "corporations are eeeeeevil" rhetoric. Let's just remember two things here. First, Eisner is a sanctimonious hypocrite whose seeming bout of charity is a transparent gimmick to pad his own bottom line. Second, it makes no sense to vilify companies that make money while playing by the rules -- if you don't like the outcome, fine, speak out, but remember that the problem isn't with the company, it's with the rules.

10. gahnett - June 29, 2010 at 01:44 pm

There are lots of instances in which even reasonable, logical, smart people neglect to practice due diligence. How many entered the derivatives market? How many contributed to the demise of the housing industry?

It's too easy to talk about such matters after the fact.

11. laker - June 29, 2010 at 01:52 pm

@stevefoerster

"if you don't like the outcome, fine, speak out, but remember that the problem isn't with the company, it's with the rules."

Is this business ethics? I agree that Eisner has his own motives, the situation has given him a bully pulpit. But to say "the rules" are to blame absolves corporations from any responsibility to anyone, or anything but their bottom line. They KNOW what they are doing is wrong, they make MONEY doing it and the RULES are to blame, not GREED.

Sorry, I forgot that Business Ethics is oxymoronic these days...

12. esselan - June 29, 2010 at 02:00 pm

What about all the students with $100,000 in private loan debt? $17,300 in federal loans is peanuts -- it's what everyone graduates with!

13. unabashedmale - June 29, 2010 at 02:28 pm

I assume this poor unwed mother also didn't understand that having children results from unprotected promiscuous relations with male
strangers.

Poor judgement seems to be her mantra, and paying off her obligations will do little to change that.

14. hamsterpants - June 29, 2010 at 03:09 pm

at #13 how do you know she had unprotected "promisicous" relations with male strangers? Do you know her personally? And how do you know she wasn't married and her husband left or died, leaving her with all the responsibility for the children?

15. hamsterpants - June 29, 2010 at 03:15 pm

From the NYT, "The committee also heard testimony from Yasmine Issa, who, as a 24-year-old, divorced mother of twins...,"

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/25/education/25education.html?ref=education

16. nancybach - June 29, 2010 at 03:17 pm

@ unabashedmale:

By making that assumption, you reveal a lot more about yourself than the woman you disparage. And none of it is flattering.

17. worldview - June 29, 2010 at 05:29 pm

It is my recommendation that any prospective student be VERY leary of a for-profit educational institution, accredited or not. I taught at one of these institutions for one semester and did not return (despite their pleas otherwise - I was and am an excellent teacher). Why? The administartion would not allow faculty to write challenging quizes and examinations and students who were failed by faculty were reinstated. Why? The school had to pass their students, regardless of student competency. This educational approach is akin to academic fraud. Although, all my students passed my administration "marginalized" quizes and exams, 75% were NOT prepared for the workforce (I would not have hired them!). All of the due dilligence on the part of prospective students will not change this fact. Unless, the public can view the "real" data on employment rates of graduates from for-profit institutions, one cannot make any judgement on the quality or appropriateness of these institutions.
Also keep in mind that these institutions market targeted skill-set training/education so graduates can get a job in the targeted field. Therefore, knowing their graduate employment rates is critical to an assesment of their cost-effectiveness (vs. a public institution - which provides a broader education).

18. director19 - June 29, 2010 at 05:39 pm

I find it difficult to believe that Ms. Issa didn't learn anything. That's crap! I've been in proprietary education for almost 20 years and have heard that same mantra from many students. It's their excuse for not doing the work.

Now, accreditation; that's another story altogether. There are several options here. Many schools do not have specific organizational accreditation. But their programs are reviewed and approved by DOE and either a national or regional accreditation organization. You can sit for an national exam without the program being approved by the specific agency.

There is no longer a Brown Mackie in Yonkers so it's difficvult to tell who granted the accreditation approval.

Be careful to identify the real agenda.



19. ccemily - June 29, 2010 at 06:09 pm

The problem with asking that students do their "due diligence" is that for-profit colleges are very slick in their marketing, and accreditation is complicated even for those who work in higher ed. If a potential student asks about the school's accreditation, they will answer, "We're nationally accredited." Which is true. However, even the savviest students would be hard-pressed at age 18 to know that in the case of colleges, national is not better than regional. And not many students know that it is pretty easy to get accredited if you just find the right accreditation body. Sanford-Brown, for instance, is nationally accredited. Sounds impressive if the student is unfamiliar with the territory--which most first gen students and even savvier students are.

20. tolerantly - June 29, 2010 at 10:19 pm

jbwlearner, I was hired by one of these for-profit scam machines, and they exist solely to prey on desperate, totally naive people like Issa, who don't know up from down when it comes to how to go to college, what accreditation is, etc. It's Upton Sinclair all over again -- every time the students think they're getting ahead, something changes on them: how credits are counted, what's required, etc. It's wildly expensive compared to community colleges, but these people get snowed into thinking that they're getting some kind of special attention at the scam-mills. The "students" are just a federal-loan delivery system. There's no actual interest in education, and the other games that go on to maintain qualifications for collecting student loans are legion.

I quit the place after going through an orientation that included an unbelievably bald explanation of how the sales crew works. Left them high and dry three days before the start of the session and was happy to do it. Buncha lowlifes. Good for Eisner for making a stink.

21. peggy875 - June 30, 2010 at 08:35 am

Sorry, this reeks of buying a witness by Mr. Eisman and he contiues to profit. The student has personal responsibility for her decisions and her loans. I have worked in for-profit and public institutions. There is good and bad at both. I seriously doubt the school had no accreditation - there are various levels of accreditation by national and regional entities.

22. trendisnotdestiny - June 30, 2010 at 08:51 am

The larger question is: what are longterm interests of major institutions in this country (corporate, government, academic)in creating an indebted and malleable society where "pay to play" collides with the deterioration of a leveraged public sphere (medicare, social security-retirement, public education)?

By eliminating these public promises (like any corporation), large institutions free up capital precisely at the same time that an entrepreneurial engineering is taking place (where the risk of individual failure is not being born by large institutions but individuals, families and communities)....

Many examples of this.... So, the question begs who's interests are being served here by creating an indebted, overleveraged middle class encouraged to feed into the belief that having a college degree now will somehow help students navigate the global marketplace....

23. pdwelch - June 30, 2010 at 10:08 am

@ #9

"...it makes no sense to vilify companies that make money while playing by the rules -- if you don't like the outcome, fine, speak out, but remember that the problem isn't with the company, it's with the rules."

To insist that the problem is "the rules" and not their predatory business practices is disingenous and misinformed. Even if one accepts your statement, it completely ignores the fact that these entities and their representation influenced the current policies regarding federal loan programs. Under the last authorization of HEA, the CCA fought (and continues to fight) to have the 10% rule eliminated. They fight the DOE to keep an arbitrary timeline for reporting student defaults (currently they are not required to report their students' defaults which occur 5 years after graduation). They do everything in their power to influence the rules to their advantage.

Also, these institutions don't make money. They simply take money from the federal government via eligible students. Hopefully, the debate created in this forum will spread so that "the rules" will cut-off for-profit institutions which offer little to no value to students.

24. intered - June 30, 2010 at 10:58 am

Student debt load, while an important concern, is not a crisis. In the past and now, most students are smart enough to make personal finance projections and not to borrow more than they can afford to pay back. Similarly, we seem always to have among us those few who, knowingly or unknowingly, exploit assistance to their own disadvantage. A few of these individuals then blame others for their poor judgment. Yasmine may or may not be an example of this irresponsible behavior. The nature and extent of our social obligation to these individuals is a central issue in this debate but the effects of the recession on job creation has caused a cloud of illogic to descend on the issue.

The real problems in the debt load lay elsewhere. The most responsible parties, among several, are the public and independent colleges and universities. For several decades they have increased total cost of attendance (tuition, fees, hidden fees, etc.) by rates that exceed the growth of the CPI and the GDP by a factor of 2-3. The for-profits, being market-driven, have exploited the publics' and independents' hyperinflationary practices by anchoring their increases to this market. It gets worse. Over the past five decades, increases in government support have been followed by a "bump" in total cost of attendance. Our colleges and universities greedily suck up every attempt of congress to increase access and affordability. This behavior might be more acceptable were it not for two things: the publics and some independents are vocal in expressing concern about access and affordability, and the productivity of the publics has been declining for 50 years.

- Robert W Tucker

25. tidewatcher - June 30, 2010 at 11:59 am

I think that everyone should take some responsibility in this matter. The for profit schools should reveal to their students whether or not they will be employable with a diploma and sit for their registries to become licensed and the prospective student must seek to identify what the governing bodies that regulate an industry in a given geographic location and ascertain if a program is suitable for their goals. When someone signs an enrollment agreement and a master promissory note for a federal loan, the name on the signature is the one held accountable. As for those who prey on unsuspecting students - we are all subject to be puppets of those who govern us. Let's keep it real people.

26. dcoffice10 - June 30, 2010 at 12:13 pm

ITT Tech commercials say that they are not accreditated, maybe a mandate that all non accreditated institutions need to make that abundantly clear?

Also, even if she knew the program was not accreditated she might not have known all the other requirements for her field. Part her fault for not exploring the requirements of the profession thoroughly, part the fault of the predatory for profit schools for not explaining to students what accreditation means, and the other requirements for obtaining a job in the profession. Shame on the for profits for there own lack of due diligence, I am sure they couldn't care less about graduation or job placement rates, because they have already pocketed the $$.

27. tidewatcher - June 30, 2010 at 12:34 pm

To dcoffice10

Unfortunately before making blanket statements such as the one you made above "Shame on the for profits for there own lack of due diligence, I am sure they couldn't care less about graduation or job placement rates, because they have already pocketed the $$." you should do your research. For profit colleges are held to a high standard of placement, graduation and retention rates or they lose their ability to operate. Look at the graduation rates of community colleges - abysmal......
The issue here is RESPONSIBILITY!

28. dcoffice10 - June 30, 2010 at 01:12 pm

@tidewater... Really where did you do your research?

As far back as 2005 data has been poor at For Profits according to reports. So Why are they plagued by high levels of student debt, high loan-default percentages, dismal graduation rates, and third-rate reputations that lead some employers to reject their graduates automatically?

Maybe you should fact check before you start critiquing others?

29. johninbrooklyn - June 30, 2010 at 02:30 pm

I find it a load of crap that a student - who might be all of 18 or 19 years old - should have to do "due diligence" on a college with a fancy marketing brochue and a slick-talking recruiter. If a college is going to offer an expensive ultrasound technician degree, that college sure better be able to place its students in those type of jobs. Mr. Eisman's data is spot-on correct. I work near a for-profit school and know a lot of students who go there. Almost all of them are now carrying $40K to $50K in debt and they'll be lucky to get a job at Kinko's when they graduate. They will default on these loans, the for-profit schools will still make their billions, and the taxpayers will be stuck with the bill. Once again, we have a financial system where one player - the schools - get to reap all the rewards while the taxpayer takes all the risks.

30. trendisnotdestiny - July 01, 2010 at 12:34 am

Intered,

Here we go again. Your first paragraph is oddly uninformed...

"Student debt load, while an important concern, is not a crisis. In the past and now, most students are smart enough to make personal finance projections and not to borrow more than they can afford to pay back."

1) You cannot compartmentalize debt like this Robert. I see families clinically everyday who are experiencing home foreclosures, healthcare bankruptcies, predatory practices for high interest debt embedded in a culture shedding jobs. Segregating debt pools among young students in this culture is like taking out another credit card to pay off the first one (it makes no sense)... Robert, you may not be aware of this, but this 'generation debt' of undergraduates will experience some of the most uneven financial burdens of any generation since the depression (will list upon request).

The fact that you do not witness crisis Robert does not mean you are able to intelligently dismiss student debt loads (especially during a period where private industry has penetrated the marketplace and increased the cost of private lending from 4% to 8% during last decade --- see stock option profits from Sallie Mae Board of Directors, Executives and Share price over that time... So, it appears you come from a privileged position of claiming no real crisis in the sector... In conjuction with other debt, high average debt loads across the US has a tendency to create a more malleable/exploited work force, pressure on monthly budgets, prevent longterm savings and delay family formation....

2) Intered, your most students are smart enough" argument underestimates the factors between imagined life and real life complexities

"Similarly, we seem always to have among us those few who, knowingly or unknowingly, exploit assistance to their own disadvantage."

3) My experience is that exploitation is a top-down process usually harnessed by tagteams of harvard attorneys with fine print from Ivy league private schools selling the Win-Win of a product or market... Actually, I find that when individuals game the system to meet their own needs, it is really an indictment on those market actors who have the power but failied to anticipate the practical needs of real people. It is so much easier though Robert for you to blame it on abstract individuals with the privilege invocation: personal responsibility.....

"but the effects of the recession on job creation has caused a cloud of illogic to descend on the issue"

4) Not really Robert, the fact that "you can see so clearly" while so many families are struggling only confirms that your elite view above the clouds while others down below are apparently only just waiting to exploiting assistance? Unfortunately, it is a depression (not a recession) buoyed only by public money, hyper-inflationary spending by the fed maintained by the delusion that America is still the globe's central economic power....

"The real problems in the debt load lay elsewhere. The most responsible parties, among several, are the public and independent colleges and universities. For several decades they have increased total cost of attendance (tuition, fees, hidden fees, etc.) by rates that exceed the growth of the CPI and the GDP by a factor of 2-3. The for-profits, being market-driven, have exploited the publics' and independents' hyperinflationary practices by anchoring their increases to this market. It gets worse. Over the past five decades, increases in government support have been followed by a "bump" in total cost of attendance. Our colleges and universities greedily suck up every attempt of congress to increase access and affordability. This behavior might be more acceptable were it not for two things: the publics and some independents are vocal in expressing concern about access and affordability, and the productivity of the publics has been declining for 50 years."

5) Here Robert, I tend to identify more with your comments. However, by introducing a for-profit system in healthcare, education or retirement planning, you incentivize competitive practices. This changes the dynamics of the system to reward those who are most competitive or aligned with for-profit models, coverts the middle into a "wannabee actors" and starves those entities who have relied upon old rules or were resistant to financial innovation... Once one school increases tuition, the game is on; in an arms race of profitability (forever changing the mission)... So I challenge your assertion that it is just public universities who are majorly responsible. We have known for a long time that the neoliberal agenda is much farther reaching than at public university doorsteps... They do not operate in a vacuum.

Lastly, you make a reasonable argument about CPI, GDP (factor of 2-3) but often Robert, government figures for economic growth and inflation are creative governmental fictitions. Kevin Phillips discusses this in his most recent book (Bad Money)... What this means is that we have all been living in artificially low-inflationary environment for some time (central tenet of free-market capitalism is tame inflation; this skews the public university is to mostly to blame argument...

We have to ask ourselves more to the point, why has low-interest credit been so cheap during the last 30 years while the costs of major middle class purchases escalated so much? You probably will not like the answer, but de-regulated, privatized markets where social supports are cut create imbalances that we call bubbles. To blame these bubbles on a structure misses the economic process we call the neoliberal turn....

Hope your July 4th includes some William Blum!

31. intered - July 01, 2010 at 12:43 pm

@trendisnot destiny,

You make several good points here but you vitiate their impact by talking down to people, stereotyping them as if you knew them, and imputing impure motives to them, implying that only you possess pure motives. It seems difficult for you to accept that some individual are capable of acting in conformance with their principles even if doing so runs counter to their personal benefit. Sad. No everyone lives in a world that is as self-serving as the one that appears to form your judgments.

Having for some time observed the hypocrisy that defines your work when you hide behind a cloak of anonymity while stridently criticizing the integrity, openness, and motives of the good work of others (on all sides), I am calling you out Mr. Trend. Either become real or be labeled hereinafter as someone lacking the courage and principled conviction to stand behind his words. It doesn't show much character to take potshots and then hide.

- Robert W Tucker

32. trendisnotdestiny - July 01, 2010 at 03:46 pm

Intered,

"You make several good points here but you vitiate their impact by talking down to people, stereotyping them as if you knew them, and imputing impure motives to them, implying that only you possess pure motives."

Points are vitiated........ OK

Don't believe in purity but do I think I am innocent of criticism or stereotyping......... the answer is no I am not innocent

You make an excellent and true point (it is difficult for me to accept that some individuals are capable of acting in conformance with their principles etc....)....... Yes I am skeptical

"I am calling you out Mr. Trend. Either become real or be labeled hereinafter as someone lacking the courage and principled conviction to stand behind his words. It doesn't show much character to take potshots and then hide."

Bob, this is a message board not a schoolyard. Call me out all you want, that's what it is for! Character is a funny thing, those selling it the most have it the least!

On a lighter note, I wish you well on OUR independence day!




33. intered - July 01, 2010 at 06:35 pm

Happy Fourth to you as well Trend. Perhaps higher education can get along without us for a few days.

34. prof_truthteller - July 03, 2010 at 10:09 pm

Interesting to see how so many blame the weak and the powerless for the depradations of the powerful. Steven Eisman is accused of being selfish and manipulative, yet the Career College Association he challenges is not? While they spend how many millions on lobbyists yet refuse to match his challenge? The CCA calls their massive lobbying "working with public policy leadership in Washington every day to continue to find ways to improve student-lending policies." ??? They show profits of 5.4 mil and pay their CEO $325K but won't spring a lousy $8,750 as a good will gesture to a student who was so obviously wronged? Eisman is accused of calling out the industry solely for monetary gain? How could that possibly be true- he probably deals in many diverse stock options from a range of business and industry. It's your "moment of zen".

Add Your Comment

Commenting is closed.

subscribe today

Get the insight you need for success in academe.