July 1, 2008

California's Oversight of For-Profit Colleges Lapses as State Law Expires

California’s oversight of for-profit colleges expired on Monday as a state law expired while state legislators battled over how to regulate the industry, which enrolls 400,000 students a year there.

Without state oversight, the students lack recourse if the proprietary colleges go out of business. The Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education also went out of business last year, when lawmakers failed to reach agreement over renewing regulations that established it. A new law in 2007 subsequently re-established it.

Republicans in the Legislature rejected a bill on Monday that would have replaced the oversight law, which expired at midnight, the Los Angeles Times reported. The new bill would have offered protections for the students, including a state-run reimbursement fund. In exchange, the bill would have relaxed rules for the colleges, including dropping a requirement that 70 percent of their graduates must be placed in jobs.

Critics said the bill would have preserved too much red tape. “Certainly we need to protect students, but we also have to be mindful of the viability of the institutions,” an assemblyman, Roger Niello, told the Times.

The debate over regulating for-profit colleges has a long history in California, with consumer advocates arguing for stronger protection for students and better reporting of job-placement data. The colleges, meanwhile, have argued that bureaucracy and overregulation have hampered their efforts to expand in the state. —Kate Moser

Comments

1. Isn’t it interesting that all the discussion seems to be focused on protecting the students who enroll in these institutions. In a large majority of the cases I am persuaded it is the future employers of their graduates who need protecting. In too many cases there is a “devil’s deal” by which underprepared students enroll in substandard courses and leave with impressive-sounding degrees and credentials not worth the paper they are printed on. The students get their credentials, the schools get their money, and it is the employers of the graduates who get stung.

   — Beenthere    Jul 1, 05:49 PM    #

2. Beenthere makes a most legimate case and sounds like a great reason for a collaborative relationship between the parties concerned with protecting student insterests with those of the hiring sector. Guys get together and get the oversight of the “snake oil” salesmen that are now free to scew all parties back in place. Come on CA legislature…you are letting everyone down!!

   — D. New    Jul 1, 06:45 PM    #

3. Apparently you are not aware of the fine education the vast majority of students in proprietary education receive. Students are taught how to solve problems. They go to work prepared to help employers right away. The feedback we consistenly get from employers is excellent. If we were not meeting their expectations, they wouldn’t continue to hire our graduates.

   Proprietary education colleges, technical schools, and universities meet very stringent and measuarable standards in terms of the number of students who start and graduate and the number who are placed in their field of study.

   Most colleges and universities don’t really care about either of these standards, nor do they really care whether you even show up. Additionally, most do not meet the same standards as proprietary education schools.

   — Steve    Jul 1, 09:46 PM    #

4. I have to laugh at California. Their private college statute’s and rules are an embarrassment to private higher education. Having worked in New York and now Florida, these schools would never get away with what they do in many other states. It is sad that the CA legislature puts politics before consumer protection. Where are you Terminator?

   — Robert    Jul 2, 02:59 PM    #

Previous: As Vietnam Expands Its Higher-Education System, Professors Are in Short Supply
Next: Princeton Gets $100-Million Pledge for Research to Prevent Global Warming