Tuesday, May 31, 2016

Jerry Brown endorses Clinton: Governor Moonbeam takes a fall for Crooked Hillary

I've long been a fan of Jerry Brown, Governor of California. He is 78 years old now, but he was 36 years old when he was elected Governor of California back in 1974--the youngest governor of the state in over a hundred years. Brown was a progressive politician then--Governor Moonbeam they called him. I admired his politics when I was a youth, and I would have voted for him if I'd been given an opportunity back when he ran for President in 1976.  He once dated Linda Ronstadt, and I gave him a lot of points for that.

But like the movie character Peter Pan, played by Robin Williams, Jerry grew up, and he started listening to what the grownups say. Now, one week before the California primary election, Jerry comes out for Crooked Hillary.

I feel sorry for Jerry Brown. He had a chance to make an important moral statement but he choked. He did what the Democratic political bosses wanted him to do.

Surely Jerry knows the old world is passing away. The status quo won't last forever. Jerry could have joined the Sanders revolution and remained true to the ideals of his younger days.

But Jerry Brown lost his nerve. At this crisis point in American history, Jerry turned out to be just an old man.

Image result for Jerry brown
Jerry Brown: Unfortunately, Peter Pan grew up


Jerry and Linda Ronstadt: Those were the days


References

Jerry Brown. Open Letter to California Democrats and Independents, May 31, 2016. http://www.jerrybrown.org/an_open_letter_to_california_democrats_and_independents

PAYE and REPAYE: Government-Supported Assisted Suicide for Distressed College-Loan Debtors

Americans disagree about the morality of euthanasia, sometimes referred to mercy killing or physician-assisted suicide. But the Department of Education has formally endorsed government-assisted financial suicide for millions of student-loan debtors by pushing them into long-term repayment plans that can last for 20 years or more.  Five million people are in these plans now and DOE hopes to enroll 2 million more by the end of 2017.

Currently, there are eight different income-based student-loan repayment plans, including PAYE and REPAYE, which were rolled out by the Obama administration. PAYE and REPAYE are the most generous options for college-loan borrowers. Both plans require borrowers to pay 10 percent of their discretionary income (income above the poverty level) for 20 years.

The government touts these plans as a humane way to lower people's monthly loan payments, which they do. But they extend the term of indebtedness from 10 year to 20 years or even longer.  And because the lower monthly payments are often not large enough to cover accruing interest, many people in these long-term repayment plans actually see their debt grow larger over time.

People who graduate from college at a young age--let's say 23--and sign up for PAYE or REPAY won't be finished paying off their loans until they are in their early 40s.  And many people don't select an income-based plan until they default on a conventional 10-year repayment plan. Brenda Butler, who I have written about before, graduated from college in 1995 and tried unsuccessfully to pay off her student loans for almost 20 years. Eventually, she signed up for a 25-year repayment plan which won't terminate until 2037--42 years after she graduated from college.

Of course people who sign up for long-term repayment plans will find it more difficult to save money to prepare for retirement. In fact, preparing for retirement is a problem for many Americans even if they aren't burdened by student loans.  Although almost half (44 percent) of all Americans expect Social Security to be their largest source of retirement income, a substantial number are filing for early benefits, even though early filing means a 25 percent reduction in monthly benefits for the rest of their lives. The New York Times reported in 2014 that 41 percent of men and 46 percent of women began receiving reduced Social Security benefits at age 62 rather than wait for four years for full benefits.

Obviously, people are taking their Social Security benefits early because they need the money immediately, even though they are penalizing themselves substantially. And of course, if they enter their Golden Years with student loans that are in default, their Social Security checks can be garnished by the government.  That's happening now for 155,000 elderly Americans.

 And their other signs of broad economic distress.  In a 2012 article for the Brookings Institution, Michael Greenstone and Adam Looney reported that wages for American men have declined dramatically over the past 40 years. "When we consider all working-age men," Greenstone and Looney wrote, "including those who are not working, the real earnings of the median male have actually declined by 19 percent since 1970. This means that the median man in 2010 earned as much as the median man did in 1964 — nearly a half century ago."

In short, this is the big picture, and it's pretty bleak. In a time of stagnant wages when millions of people in their 60s are being forced to take reduced Social Security benefits in order to meet immediate financial needs, the Department of Education is encouraging distressed student-loan debtors to sign up for long-term student-loan repayment plans that will reduce their annual income until they are in their 40s, their 50s, or even their 60s. In essence, these people have agreed to submit to government-assisted financial suicide--reducing their ability to prepare for retirement just to get the government's debt collectors off their backs.



References

Bob Brenzing. AP Poll: Many take Social Security before full retirement, May 26, 2016.Fox News 17. Accessible at http://fox17online.com/2016/05/26/ap-poll-many-take-social-security-before-full-retirement/

 Michael Greenstone and Adam Looney. The Uncomfortable Truth About American Wages. Brooking Institution, October 23, 2012. Accessible at http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2012/10/22-wages-greenstone-looney

John F. Wasik. Social Security At 62? Let's Run the Numbers. New York Times, May 14, 2014. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/15/business/retirementspecial/social-security-at-62-lets-run-the-numbers.html

Barney Frank, World Class Sleaze, Accuses Bernie Sanders of McCarthyism

Barney Frank, former Congressman from Massachusetts, will be one of Hillary Clinton's Super Delegates at the Democratic Convention. Indeed, Frank is on the Convention's Platform  Committee. That fact that Barney Frank is a Hillary partisan is reason enough to be a Bernie Sanders supporter.

Most people have forgotten that Barney Frank paid for sex with a male prostitute, hired the guy to be a personal assistant and then turned a blind eye while the prostitute ran a prostitution ring out of Frank's apartment.  (Frank insisted that he was unaware that his apartment was being used for prostitution, and he may have been telling the truth.) And all of this while Frank represented the state of Massachusetts in Congress. The House of Representatives reprimanded Frank, not for hiring a prostitute, but for writing a misleading letter to the prostitute's probation officer. Oh yes. And Frank used his congressional privilege to fix more than 30 of the prostitute's parking tickets

You don't have to believe me.  Read about it in the New York Times and other respected newspapers.

Frank was on the House Financial Services Committee in 2005, when he downplayed concerns about the bubble in the housing industry. Millions of Americans suffered losses in the financial downturn of 2008, but not Frank. As  Liz Peak  reported in 2011, Frank did quite well during the financial crisis and retired from Congress comfortably fixed: 
As a steward of the nation’s purse during the financial crisis Mr. Frank may not have succeeded, but he did quite well personally. Unusually, Mr. Frank’s personal finances sailed right through the downturn. In 2006 he reported assets valued between $525,020 and $1.6 million; by 2010 Mr. Franks’ net worth had soared to between $1.9 million and $4.6 million, with nary a down year in between. No wonder he can afford to retire. 
 And now Frank, speaking as a Super Delegate for Hillary Clinton, has the effrontery to accuse Bernie Sanders--the only decent person left in the presidential race--of McCarthyism!

Barney Frank is one of roughly 400 Democratic Party insiders who have profited from politics while the American economy spirals downward. And Frank's vote as a Super Delegate is worth more than a coal miner's vote in the West Virginia primary or a Walmart clerk's vote in the Oklahoma primary.

The media elites--all self-proclaimed progressives--have closed their eyes to Hillary's cronyism and self-dealing and have thrown their support to Bernie's opponent.

But I have a message for all Hillary's media lap dogs who are disparaging Bernie Sanders--Frank Bruni, Froma Harrop, Cokie and Steve Roberts, etc. etc. etc. Hillary Clinton will not be the next president of the United States.  And the public will remember the journalists who were confronted with a choice between sleaze and decency during the 2016 presidential campaign and who chose to support sleaze.


Barney Frank's quarter century in Congress was interrupted by a scandal that would have buried other men. But this openly gay congressman, who has one of the fiercest wits and sharpest minds on Capitol Hill, remains a force to be reckoned with.
Barney Frank, a Hillary Super Delegate, Accuses Bernie Sanders of McCarthyism

  
References

 Allan Gold. Frank Acknowledges Hiring Male Prostitute as Personal Aide. New York Times, August 25, 1989. Accessible at http://www.nytimes.com/1989/08/26/us/rep-frank-acknowledges-hiring-male-prostitute-as-personal-aide.html?pagewanted=all

Frances Romero. Sinful Statesman Barney Frank. Time Magazine, June 8, 2011. Accessible at http://content.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1721111_1721210_1883878,00.html

Mark Finkelstein.Hillary Fan Barney Frank Accuses of Bernie Sanders of 'McCarthyism."MRC Newsbusters, April 6, 2016. Accessible at http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/mark-finkelstein/2016/04/06/hillary-fan-barney-frank-accuses-bernie-sanders-mccarthyism

A Timeline of Politicians and Prostitutes. U.S. News & World Report, March 11, 2008. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2008/03/11/a-timeline-of-politicians-and-prostitutes

Liz Peek. Barney Frank Won't Have To Worry About Money In Retirement. Fox News, December 2, 2011. Accessible at http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/12/02/barney-frank-wont-have-to-worry-about-money-in-retirement.html

Cokie and Steve Roberts. Bernie Sanders plays a dangerous game. Baton Rouge Advocate, May 30, 2016, p. 5B.  Also accessible at  http://kpcnews.com/opinions/other_columnists/kpcnews/article_ac1c34ff-ce96-5376-89c8-26841b44436a.html

Saturday, May 28, 2016

Navient Solutions and Student Assistance Corporation stung for violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act: 727 automated phone calls to student debtor's mother!

Navient Solutions, Inc. and Student Assistance Corporation (SAC) got stung last month by a federal district court for violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Navient made 249 automated collection calls to Willie McCaskill, a student debtor's mother.  Co-Defendant Student Assistance Corporation made another 478 automated calls to McCaskill's phone number.

As explained by the court, McCaskill is entitled to $500 for each violation, which adds up to $363,500.  In addition, the court will hold a trial to determine whether the defendants violations were wilful, which would entitle to McCaskill to treble damages. Let's hope she wins.

Navient and SAC asserted a goofy defense, which the court rejected. They argued that McCaskill "gave express consent" to being called about her daughter's debt. The court pointed out that Navient presented no evidence showing that McCaskill knowingly released her phone number to the debt collectors or that she had had any contact with them before they started calling. As if any mom would agree to getting bombarded with hundreds of phone calls from her daughter's creditors.

SAC and Navient also argued that McCaskill and her daughter were in an agency relationship, and that the daughter had legal authority to consent to the phone calls on her mother's behalf. But this is what the daughter testified:
You don't give out my mom's number, which is her business. I handle my own business, she handles her own business .. . .She stay over there, and I stay over here.
The court ruled that the defendants identified no evidence that questioned the daughter's testimony. Accordingly, the court granted McCaskill summary judgment on her TCPA claims.

Who is Navient Solutions anyway? Here's how it introduces itself on the web:
Although our name is new, our business is not. For more than 40 years we learned, evolved, and led in loan management, servicing and asset recovery as Sallie Mae®. And now, we continue to lead as Navient, a company dedicated to helping our clients and the people we serve along the path to financial success.
Navient also says "it is committed to fulfilling our role as an active corporate citizen with integrity and transparency." And oh yes. Navient is big into philanthropy, boasting that "[w]e recognize the importance of corporate philanthropy by giving back to our own communities and encouraging employees to volunteer."

Navient sounds like a model corporate citizen.  But if all Navient says about itself is true, why did it make 249 harassing telephone calls to a student debtor's mother?

References

McCaskill v. Navient Solutions, Inc., No. 8:15-cv-1559-T-33TBM (M.D. Fla. April 6, 2016).

Thursday, May 26, 2016

Free tuition for first-time freshmen at good private liberal arts colleges: Why the hell not?

Small liberal arts colleges are in trouble all over the United States. They're having a heck of a time attracting students, as families respond more and more negatively to outrageous tuition prices. Let's face it: not many people want to pay $100,000 to obtain a degree from a nondescript liberal arts college in Nowhereville, Indiana,

In a desperate effort to attract warm bodies, liberal arts colleges have been discounting their tuition drastically for first-time freshmen, behaving more and more like rug sellers in an Arab bazaar.  (I apologize if I made a politically incorrect observation.) For the past several years, the discount rate has gone ever upward; and last year, private liberal arts colleges discounted tuition for first-time freshman by nearly 50 percent! And they discounted tuition for undergraduates as a whole by more than 40 percent.

All commentators agree: this trend can't go on forever.  And colleges can't reverse course by simply lowering their tuition rates because they would be admitting that they've been overbilling their clients. As one observer noted, if you've been selling Toyotas for $30,000 apiece, how can you explain why you now only charge $20,000?

But what about this? Why don't small private liberal arts colleges--the ones that still have good reputations--offer applicants free tuition for the first year to everyone who enrolls?

Think about it. Colleges have already cut tuition by 50 percent on average for freshmen, and they're still having trouble meeting their enrollment targets. And once they get the little rascals in the door, they still have to discount tuition by more than 40 percent.

If a college offered free tuition for freshman, there would be two good consequences. First, the college would get more applicants and a higher percentage of applicants who are accepted would actually enroll. And second, the college could be more selective because the overall quality of the applicant pool would improve.

Of course, such a move would have to be planned carefully. Here's how I would do it:

1) The college making the  offer would promise to admit students based on published academic criteria--without regard to race, class, gender, or sexual orientation. Applicants would know that their credentials were being judged transparently based solely on academic considerations.

2) Students who accept the offer would agree to attend the college a second year and pay the full tuition price if the college didn't offer a sophomore-year discount.

3) Colleges making this offer would assign their best faculty members to teach freshmen so that students who enrolled would have a top-notch freshman year and thus would be more likely return as sophomores. No more crowding a couple of hundred freshmen into theatre-style classrooms to be taught by an inexperienced graduate assistant or a burned-out gas bag who should have never gotten tenure.

This is a risky strategy I know. But colleges are already charging freshmen half price, and many are still seeing their enrollments decline. If offering a free year led to a 50 percent bump in freshman enrollment, that would absorb a good deal of the cost of this strategy if those students could be retained as sophomores, juniors and seniors.

One thing for sure--college administrators are playing a losing game right now. They can't go on giving big tuition discounts to favored students using secret criteria that families don't understand. They can't rely on public relations firms, perky recruiters, and billboard advertising to juice their enrollments.

The public has figured out that a liberal arts degree from an obscure private college is overpriced. To bring back the paying customers, the colleges must offer value. What better way to communicate value than by giving new students a year of free tuition and then offering a first-class educational experience?

Or is that too simplistic?

Image result for university billboard advertising


References

Rick Seltzer. Discount rates rise yet again at private colleges and universities. Inside Higher Ed, May 16, 2016. Accessible at https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/05/16/discount-rates-rise-yet-again-private-colleges-and-universities.



Tuesday, May 24, 2016

University of Phoenix is eliminating mandatory arbitration clauses in its student agreements. Hmmm. When a for-profit does the right thing, it's probably in trouble

On May 19th, Apollo Education Group, which owns University of Phoenix, announced that it is eliminating mandatory arbitration clauses in its student contracts. This is good news and is in harmony with the Department of Education's desire to do away with arbitration clauses in for-profit universities' student agreements.

Arbitration clauses, as many commentators have noted, tend to favor corporate entities over individuals. Students who signed arbitration agreements can't sue the institution they attended in court even if they have a fraud claim. Arbitration clauses generally prohibit class action suits, which would be a useful way for a group of defrauded students to band together to get relief. And arbitration decisions are generally secret. Thus, even if a university loses an arbitration dispute with a student who was victimized, other injured students are unlikely to learn about it.

Please forgive my cynicism about the for-profit industry, but here's my first reaction. When a for-profit college does the right thing, it's probably in trouble. And University of Phoenix is in big trouble.

Enrollments are down by more than half from Phoenix's peak enrollments. Its stock price, once as high as $90 a share, is now selling for a little more than nine bucks. The key senior executives have negotiated a deal with three private equity groups to buy the Apollo Education Group and Phoenix, and all the big boys will get golden parachutes.

The key player in the buyout partnership is Martin Nesbitt, literally Barack Obama's best friend. And the guy in charge (if the deal goes through) will be Tony Miller, former Deputy Secretary of Education in the Obama administration.  Such a cozy arrangement.

So what the heck--why not eliminate mandatory arbitration clauses now, especially since that is what the Department of Education wants the for-profits to do.

But--as I've said before--DOE's push against mandatory arbitration clauses is tardy. President Obama has been in office seven and half years, and DOE is just now getting around to addressing this serious problem. And new rules will be going through a negotiated rulemaking process that the for-profit industry knows well. There is a very good chance that any new rule restricting mandatory arbitration clauses in student enrollment agreements will be watered down.

Nevertheless, Apollo Education Group's announcement is a good start, and higher-education reformers should take heart. Not that there are any higher-education reformers. Just you and me; that's just about everybody.

References

U.S. Department of Education. U.S. Department of Education Takes Further Steps to Protect Students from Predatory Higher Education Institutions. March 11, 2016. Accessible at http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-department-education-takes-further-steps-protect-students-predatory-higher-education-institutions?utm_content=&utm_medium=email&utm_name=&utm_source=govdelivery&utm_term=

News Release. Apollo Education Group to Eliminate Mandatory Arbitration Clauses. May 19, 2016.
Accessible at http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=79624&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=2169809

Ronald Hansen. Apollo Education sale 'golden parachute' could be worth $22 million to executives. Arizona Republic, March 8, 2016. Accessible at http://www.azcentral.com/story/money/business/2016/03/08/apollo-education-sale-executives-payout-22-million/81483912/

Sarah Jones. Top Apollo Education Investor Urges Board to Resist Takeover. Bloomberg News, January 29, 2016. Accessible at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-29/top-apollo-education-investor-urges-board-to-resist-takeover

Patria Cohen and Chad Bray. University of Phoenix Owner, Apollo Education Group, Will Be Taken Private. New York Times, February 8, 2016. Accessible at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/09/business/dealbook/apollo-education-group-university-of-phoenix-owner-to-be-taken-private.html

Soyong Kim. Apollo teams with Washington insider for education deal. Reuters, January 12, 2016. Accessible at http://www.reuters.com/article/us-apollo-education-m-a-apollo-global-idUSKCN0UQ23W20160112

Dan Primack. Obama's 'best friend' raises millions for private equity fund. Fortune Magazine, August 11, 2014. Accessible at http://fortune.com/2014/08/11/obamas-best-friend-raises-millions-for-private-equity-fund/

Why the Obama administration launched its REPAYE plan: It had no choice

Late last year, the Obama administration's Department of Education launched its eighth student-loan repayment program, labeling it REPAYE.  Very similar to a previous Obama initiative titled PAYE, the REPAYE program allows college-loan borrowers to pay off their student loans over 20 years. The chief new feature of REPAYE is broader eligibility. Nearly every student-loan debtor will qualify to participate in the REPAY program.

Under both PAYE and REPAYE, college-loan debtors make monthly payments based on their income, not the amount they borrowed. Payment rates are established annually, based on the borrower's reported income for the previous year, with payments calculated to equal10 percent of the borrower's discretionary income.

In many ways, REPAYE is a good deal for overburdened student-loan debtors. Monthly payments will be lower than the standard 10-year repayment plan; and payments will be allowed to fluctuate as borrowers' income goes up or down. People who are unemployed or who live at the poverty level won't be required to make any payments at all.

All in all, the Obama administration's latest student-loan program is incredibly generous. In fact, most debtors on the REPAYE plan will be making monthly payments so low that they won't cover accruing interest on their loans. In other words, at the end of the 20-year repayment program, most debtors will still have large balances on their loans, which will be forgiven.  The forgiven amount will be absorbed by taxpayers.

Why did the Obama administration launch REPAYE, which could reasonably criticized as fiscally irresponsible? I will tell you why: it had no choice.

For years, the government has permitted overburdened student-loan debtors to enroll in economic hardship deferment programs and other forbearance plans that allowed borrowers to temporarily skip their monthly student-loan payments. Colleges encouraged this practice as a way to keep their short-term  student-loan default rates down--particularly the for-profit colleges, which needed to keep their default rates below 30 percent in order to continue receiving federal student-aid money.

For some people on these plans, however, the forbearances weren't temporary--they stretched out for years while interest accrued on their original debt. Thus for virtually everyone in a forbearance or deferment program, their loan balances were getting larger with each passing month due to accruing interest.

This phenomenon was documented in a recent Brookings Institution report written by Looney and Yanelis. These scholars found that loan balances were going up, not down, two years into the repayment period for more than half of student-loan borrowers in repayment.

In fact, for millions of people who have had their student loans in nonpayment status for any considerable period of time, it has become virtually impossible to to pay back their loans. This state of affairs drove many debtors into default, which caused their balances to grow even larger due to the penalties and fees that got tacked on to their debt.

President Obama and Arne Duncan could see that there were only two ways out of this morass. Either people must be allowed to file for bankruptcy to discharge their college-loan debt or their loans have to be refinanced to make the monthly payments lower. Since bankruptcy reform is politically impossible, Obama and Duncan chose to launch PAYE and REPAYE.

But there are enormous problems with the Obama administration's fix. First, most people entering PAYE and REPAYE are not enrolling immediately after graduating from college. Most struggle for a few years to make payments under the standard 10-year plan and then enter REPAYE because they can't service their loans. For these people, enrolling in a 20-year repayment plan extends their repayment period out over their entire working lives.

Butler v. Educational Credit Management Corporation, decided earlier this year, illustrates this problem. Beverly Butler struggled for almost 20 years to make payments on loans she took out to get her college degree, which she obtained in 1995. Eventually, she enrolled in a 25-year repayment plan that stretches out her loan repayment period until 2037--42 years after she graduated from college!

And of course the other big problem with PAYE and REPAYE is that most people in these programs are not paying back their loans at all; they are making token payments that don't cover accruing interest. In essence, these programs are designed to disguise the fact that for all practical purposes, people in long-term repayment programs have defaulted on their loans.

This is no small matter. Almost 5 million people are in income-based repayment plans now; and the Department of Education wants to enroll 2 million more by the end of next year. Without question, REPAYE is going to be the default option for most student-loan debtors in the years to come, which is what the Brookings Institution and other higher-education industry insiders want to happen.

In reality, the Obama administration has imposed a tax on most people who borrow money to attend college;  REPAYE participants will be obligated to pay a percentage of their incomes for a majority of their working lives in return for the privilege of going to college.

How ironic. Barrack Obama, self-proclaimed friend of the disadvantaged, has established a huge sharecropper program for college goers. Ultimately of course, all Obama did was buy time for the college industry. In the long run, REPAYE can't sustain the status quo. At some time in the not too distant future, higher education as we now know it will collapse.

And the first cards to fall in this house of cards will be the for-profit colleges and the small private liberal arts colleges. Be patient. You don't have long to wait.

Enrollment at four-year for-profit colleges declined 9.3 percent from last year, and the University of Phoenix's enrollment has declined by half from its peak years. The private liberal arts colleges are behaving like a Texas fireworks stand (Buy One, Get One Free!!), discounting tuition for first-time freshman by 48 percent.

The end is near.

 References

Erin E. Arvedlund. A new way, REPAYE, to get out of college debt. Philadelphia Inquirer, March 29, 2016. http://articles.philly.com/2016-03-29/business/71877131_1_income-based-repayment-plan-loan-debt-standard-repayment-plan.

Adam Looney & Constantine Yannelis, A crisis in student loans? How changes in the characteristics of borrowers and in the institutions they attended contributed to rising default rates. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution (2015). Accessible at: http://www.brookings.edu/about/projects/bpea/papers/2015/looney-yannelis-student-loan-defaults

Rick Seltzer. Discount rates rise yet again at private colleges and universities. Inside Higher Ed, May 16, 2016. Accessible at https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/05/16/discount-rates-rise-yet-again-private-colleges-and-universities.

Kelly Woodhouse. (2015, November 25). Discount Much? Inside Higher Ed. Accessible at: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/11/25/what-it-might-mean-when-colleges-discount-rate-tops-60-percent?utm_source=Inside+Higher+Ed&utm_campaign=389f6fe14e-DNU20151125&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1fcbc04421-389f6fe14e-198565653

Enrollments slide, particularly for older students. Inside Higher Ed, May 24, 2016. Accessible at https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2016/05/24/enrollments-slide-particularly-older-students?utm_source=Inside+Higher+Ed&utm_campaign=74ec3a191d-DNU20160524&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1fcbc04421-74ec3a191d-198564813