• Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Previous

Next

For-Profits Give Thousands to Politicians Who Oppose ‘Gainful Employment’ Rule

September 17, 2010, 2:23 pm

Members of Congress who signed letters to Education Secretary Arne Duncan that expressed concern about the Education Department’s proposed “gainful employment” rule received nearly $94,000 in campaign contributions from for-profit colleges from January to late July, according to ProPublica, an independent, nonprofit news outlet focusing on investigations. In the face of the new rule, which would cut off federal student aid to programs whose graduates have high debt-to-income ratios and low loan-repayment rates, and attacks from Congress, for-profit colleges have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars lobbying Congress and federal agencies, nearly doubling their lobbying expenditures over the past year.

This entry was posted in Teaching. Bookmark the permalink.

  • Print
  • Comment (15)

15 Responses to For-Profits Give Thousands to Politicians Who Oppose ‘Gainful Employment’ Rule

jbarman - September 17, 2010 at 3:54 pm

What’s the news here?

bstevens - September 17, 2010 at 3:57 pm

The states and their state boards of higher education should be against this rule also. Let the Feds make rules about paying back loans, but don’t let them decide what constitutes higher education.

stevedrake - September 17, 2010 at 3:58 pm

wonder how much $$$ traditional higher ed would fork over if “gainful employment” regs were extended to cover them as well?

davh7278 - September 17, 2010 at 4:06 pm

Write to all the Senators on Harkin’s HELP committee and tell them to pass into law “gainful employment rules” and to stop the for-profits from feeding at the trough of the taxpayers and on unknowing students. You can search HELP committe and their names and emails will come up.

haohtt - September 17, 2010 at 5:11 pm

davh7278: while you are at it, tell Senator Harkin to return the over $2,000,000,000.00 in federal income taxes paid by for-profit colleges and universities last year (“non-profit” universities paid a combined total of $0). Also tell Senator Harkin that “gainful employment rules” should also be applied to the 100 universities that charge over $35,000 annual tuition (none of which are “for-profit”). Oh, and tell Senator Harkin, that “gainful employment” should be applied to all universities that offer social work, English, teacher education, sociology, literature or any “area studies” degrees. Also, tell the good Senator that since community college and state university students all receive far more total taxpayer funds than any student at a for-profit college, they should be forced to repay that funding if they drop out and do not complete their degrees. Oh, by the way, I just read that only 24% of Harvard Medical School students are actively paying back their loans. So, davh7278, please remind Senator Harkin that his “gainful employment rules” specify federal funding to be withheld to any program with a repayment rate lower than 35%, so funds to Harvard should be cut off. If “gainful employment rules” were enforced consistently–instead of arbitrarily and hypocritically–you would see an onslaught of (taxpayer funded) lobbying and political contributions, the likes of which have rarely been seen.

bearjimmy - September 17, 2010 at 6:51 pm

haohtt, you need to get a life. All graduates holding an MD granting school or college (e.g., medical school) accredited by the Graduate Education in Medicine qualify for tuition reimbursement if they agree to work in a hospital, or private medical practice in a Federally identified underserved area of the country, i.e., Appalachia (which runs from Maine to northern Alabama). Moreover, after Residency, in just one year of practice most MDs will earn far more than all four years of medical education cost at a public university, i.e., NC’s Chapel Hill. Beyond that, many of the for-profit colleges prey on potential students who for one reason don’t want to do what it takes to attend a non-profit public or private university, i.e., vetrans, or inlisted persons who want the government to pay for a degree, but don’t want the bother of moving to a new location. The bottom line about the Education Department’s proposed ruling is about students who take a degree that has little, if any value toward getting gainful employment in the field of study, beyond minimum wage. Try paying $100K in loans back while getting married, having a baby, supporting two vehicles, and buying or renting a home, furnishing a home,when only one of the parents works, and even then brings in only $30K a year. Yes, the loan will get paid back eventually; however, in the meantime Uncle Sam, meaning you and me will be picking up the tab for the interest on the loan, which is somewhere between $1k, and $2,5K, depending on the type of loan(s), and interest rate.

princeton67 - September 17, 2010 at 8:30 pm

The for-profits sell their soul for $$$; the Division I non-profits, for athletes. If Congress were thinking of passing a rule that, for example, forbade a student to represent his university until his SAT’s were within (about) 200 points of the average at that school, then you’d see millions, not thousands, of lobbying dollars.

haohtt - September 17, 2010 at 11:37 pm

bearjimmy, A small fraction of medical school graduates go on to work “in a Federally identified underserved area of the country.” The “gainful employment rule” bans federal funding for programs who graduate payback rates fall below 35%, so Harvard’s and Tulane’s med school 24% payback rates would qualify for the ban. You are correct in your assessment of the payback opportuntities for medical students, which is why the arbitrary “gainful employment” rules are so silly (and why they should apply equally to non-profits). Your opinions about military students and the value or lack thereof of degrees from for-profit universities have no basis in reality and run counter to the latest research data. I have a wonderful and full life, thank you, Perhaps, my friend, you should do a little homework.

disembedded - September 18, 2010 at 4:18 am

I agree with jbarman. What is the news here?

willynilly - September 18, 2010 at 10:19 pm

Another very lame and feeble effort on the part of the “For-Profits” to try to buy some respectability. At the end of the day it won’t work.

mbelvadi - September 20, 2010 at 8:53 am

Jbarman and disembedded – the day that journalists take your advice and stop reporting on every new instance of possible corruption by elected politicians is the day that you should just declare democracy dead and buried in the US and “elect” a king and get it over with. Just because corruption is common doesn’t mean the media should stop reporting it! Just the opposite!

haohtt - September 20, 2010 at 11:57 am

How about the lobbying from the non-profit universities, whose pressure to eliminate the competition from the for-profits led to these investigations in the first place (coupled with the fact that many officials in the Obama Administration came directly from working for these institutions into the Administration)?

simonj55 - September 20, 2010 at 3:11 pm

There are some things that simply don’t belong in the the for-profit sector, just as there are things that should never be privatized. What the for-profit schools do is not education, but profit-making. Far more than in other schools, learning is relegated to maximizing revenues and profit. They work very well for the many students who go to college simply to have paper credentials. In other colleges, one can at least hold the position that that is , wrong without getting kicked out.

softshellcrab - September 20, 2010 at 3:35 pm

Bravo, simonj55. My sentiments exactly. My experience with for-profits is that they are simply selling degrees, and that their primary structure is about keeping students and not failing them, no matter what. I have very little respect for for-profit schools.

jesor - September 24, 2010 at 3:01 pm

hahott,I’m confused by your math. How does a student attending a non-profit public institution whose total cost of instruction (counting taxpayer subsidy) + living expenses = 30K per year cost the taxpayers more than the same student receiving full federal aid in a for-profit massage therapy program that costs 45K per year (counting room, board, books, etc.)? But I guess I’m just one of those people who doesn’t know better because I work in public higher education.One thing we will agree on though is that institutions that charge more than 35K per year in tuition alone should be subject to some sort of scrutiny.