On Friday, Cokie Roberts, senior news analyst at NPR, predicted that Democratic lawmakers, in particular, will be reluctant to aggressively regulate for-profit colleges because of their ties to the Washington Post, one of the nation’s most powerful newspapers. The Washington Post Co. owns Kaplan University, among other for-profits.
“But I have to tell you, the biggest objection to [regulation] has come from the fact that The Washington Post would go out of business if Kaplan went out of business – yes, I see Peter Smith waiving,” Roberts said with a chuckle. “Because The Washington Post money all comes from Kaplan and the Democrats don’t want The Washington Post to go out of business, so I think there are a lot of forces militating against those rules at the moment.”
While the Post maintains the independence of its newsroom, its editorial page has argued against new rules such as the "gainful employment" regulation proposed by the U.S. Department of Education.
The gainful employment rule is a quality measure that restricts federal financial aid to those for-profits that have a student repayment rate of 45% or better in an effort to ensure that the education students pay for results in employment with adequate compensation.
Currently, many for-profit colleges such as Everest College, do not meet this standard. As a result, students who are frequently paying $20,000 to $70,000 for their educations graduate with debts they have no possibility of repaying.
Iowa Senator Tom Harkin and Milwaukee Congresswoman Gwen Moore are among those who support the gainful employment regulation
MATC wouldn't meet the gainful employment rule if it was enacted across the board without prejudice; those who live in glass houses.....
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDeleteYou are worng. MATC does meet the proposed repayment rate of 45% because the college does not charge extortionist tuition and fees like the for-profit colleges and because MATC is regionally acredited which means that the credits transfer to other legitimate institutions and are recognized by employers as a standard of quality unlike the credits from most for-profit colleges colleges.
According to the DOE data, the entire MATC system is only at 43% repayment rate. You continue to make claims regarding MATC without backing it up with anything of substance. Please come out of the cloud of hypocrisy and actually provide evidence of your claims of the MATC repayment rate. Until you do so, I would recommend to hold onto your rocks....
ReplyDeleteSurprised it took that long to get this thread off of the front page.
ReplyDeleteGetting the government on your side when you are facing a tough fight in court is a time honored technique in American business, and Kaplan and the for profit industry is no stranger to it. The usual approach is to equate the threat to Kaplan or the for profit industry with injury to society, (i.e. Americans are uneducated and need college degrees), then exaggerate the magnitude of the problem beyond recognition, (i.e. If we don't educate every American we will lose control as a world power) and then claim Kaplan University has the answer in the form of overpriced online education paid for by student loans. This rhetorical strategy makes it seem as if America is hanging on by a thread to its status as world economic power. All will be lost if it is not already, unless legislation is enacted to protect this altruistic industry and provide a college degree to everyone in America at tax payer expense.
ReplyDeleteThe real problem ignored by the DOE is the conflict of interest between Kaplan, the for profit industry, elected officials, and the taxpayers. When the for profit industry is in trouble it has every incentive to use the political process to improve its chances of survival. Elected officials who see an opportunity to extract political contributions and other favors often are eager to help. Regulators at the DOE and accrediting bodies like the HLC are also willing participants insuring survival of the industry because their current positions and future ability to market themselves to the private sector are enhanced in this process. Elected officials and regulators know that there is a good chance the problem will get worse, but they don't care. By the time the industries problems become too visible to be ignored and the student loan debt crisis hits they will be long gone and a new generation of elected officials and regulators in place. And for this new generation the "crisis" will present additional opportunities to search for scape goats like Ben Wilcox and rescue the industry. These efforts are then used to convince tax payers who are left to pay the bill, that the government is on their side and something is being done to bring the guilty like Kaplan University to justice.
The for profit education industry in the United States is a highly sophisticated, diversified, activity that annually drains billions of dollars from Americas economy by unlawful conduct.
The question is, should the U.S. taxpayer continue to subsidize the for profit education industry, Kaplan University, and the Washington Post with government backed student loans when so much fraud goes unchecked by the Higher Learning Commission, the Department of Education , the DOJ and the courts?
Getting the government on your side when you are facing a tough fight in court is a time honored technique in American business, and Kaplan and the for profit industry is no stranger to it. The usual approach is to equate the threat to Kaplan or the for profit industry with injury to society, (i.e. Americans are uneducated and need college degrees), then exaggerate the magnitude of the problem beyond recognition, (i.e. If we don't educate every American we will lose control as a world power) and then claim Kaplan University has the answer in the form of overpriced online education paid for by student loans. This rhetorical strategy makes it seem as if America is hanging on by a thread to its status as world economic power. All will be lost if it is not already, unless legislation is enacted to protect this altruistic industry and provide a college degree to everyone in America at tax payer expense.
ReplyDeleteThe real problem ignored by the DOE is the conflict of interest between Kaplan, the for profit industry, elected officials, and the taxpayers. When the for profit industry is in trouble it has every incentive to use the political process to improve its chances of survival. Elected officials who see an opportunity to extract political contributions and other favors often are eager to help. Regulators at the DOE and accrediting bodies like the HLC are also willing participants insuring survival of the industry because their current positions and future ability to market themselves to the private sector are enhanced in this process. Elected officials and regulators know that there is a good chance the problem will get worse, but they don't care. By the time the industries problems become too visible to be ignored and the student loan debt crisis hits they will be long gone and a new generation of elected officials and regulators in place. And for this new generation the "crisis" will present additional opportunities to search for scape goats like Ben Wilcox and rescue the industry. These efforts are then used to convince tax payers who are left to pay the bill, that the government is on their side and something is being done to bring the guilty like Kaplan University to justice.
The for profit education industry in the United States is a highly sophisticated, diversified, activity that annually drains billions of dollars from Americas economy by unlawful conduct.
The question is, should the U.S. taxpayer continue to subsidize the for profit education industry, Kaplan University, and the Washington Post with government backed student loans when so much fraud goes unchecked by the Higher Learning Commission, the Department of Education , the DOJ and the courts?