The Government Accountability Office recently revised portions of its report on an undercover investigation of for-profit colleges that was the centerpiece of testimony at a U.S. Senate education committee hearing this summer, The Washington Post reported, and at least one senator is crying foul. Sen. Michael B. Enzi of Wyoming, the panel’s senior Republican, said in a letter to the GAO’s acting comptroller that the revisions appear to be “substantial” and that the report should be withdrawn. A spokeswoman for Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa, the committee’s chairman, told the Post that the revisions “do not change the substance of the report” or its conclusions that the for-profit colleges investigated “used deceptive or fraudulent recruiting techniques to enroll new students.”
- 1255 Twenty-Third St, N.W.
- Washington, D.C. 20037
- Copyright © 2013 The Chronicle of Higher Education
While the two schools whose representatives clearly engaged in deceipt should be fully accountable for those actions, the impact of this report hinges on it claims that all of the schools investigated were guilty of “deceptive of fraudulent techniques.” The report itself actually classified the actions of most as “questionable” by the GAO investigator standards. So, it is resonable to ask whether the GAO investigators and those who wrote the report did so without an anti for-profit bias that would cause them to interpret (or even manipulate) the data to support the bias. The GAO’s “revisions” include the fact that information that a school representative refused to provide when “directly asked” was, in fact, merely not found by the investigator on the school website. A student who supposedly was given an inflated post-graduate salary estimate was, in fact, quoted a correct estimate–the student was told that the higher wages were that of the school’s instructors and directors. After a school representative reported high salaries for some past graduates, an accurate salary expectation for the current economy was provided (that latter info was omitted from the original GAO report). I would suggest that Tom Harkin’s strong accusations (particularly regarding deception) can be applied to the quality of this report and the reliability of its conclusions.
I agree with haohtt. The penchant of this administration to vilify those who do not fit their vision of government controlled (insert industry here) is sickening. This really has turned into a thugocracy in which a cult of personality runs the world.
It reminds me of a very bad Luke Wilson movie “Idiocracy”.
Add my agreement to the fact that the few clearly fraudulent enrollment representatives should be fined or otherwise punished in accordance with the law. That said, where it he law and punishment for the GAO editors and others who engaged in an intentional misrepresentation to support the administration’s vision of the “right kind of higher education?” If you watch the video of Harkin’s hearings, you will see a person chasing a pre-determined conclusion with any available factoids. At one point he shed crocodile tears of concern upon learning that those “despicable for-profits” won’t release students’ grades until they pay overdue bills. Someone then told him that this practice started long before for-profits and that all schools have this rule. The good senator’s “response” was to change the subject. Honest, truth-seeking guy, right?
It looks to me like the feds want full control over higher education to fit with a larger agenda (harmonization is my guess). One unfortunate irony in this vicious attack on the for-profits is that the non-profits have aided and abetted the feds in their dirty dealings, blissfully ignorant of the fact that they are next.
Similarly, I can’t find much room in my heart for the financial or automotive industries, but I am sickened by the president’s willful act to break the law with respect to bondholder’s rights. He set a dangerous precedent that has yet to play out. I have fought my own growing perception that the president is an elitist who doesn’t know what he doesn’t know and does not have the inclination to learn. I still hope I am wrong.
If you are receptive
You may get a receipt
But words can be deceptive
There’s no word spelled “deceipt.”