Saturday, March 12, 2016

Thomas Jefferson School of Law is being sued for misrepresentation by Anna Alaburda, a TJSL graduate. Let's hope she wins

Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego is a defendant in a lawsuit filed by Anna Alaburda, one its graduates. The case may go to trial this week.

Alaburda, who received her JD from TJSL in 2008, sued the law school in a California state court, claiming the school misrepresented the employment statistics of its graduates. Alaburda argues that she enrolled at Thomas Jefferson based partly on the school's representations about its graduates' job prospects, but that the school dispensed misleading information. Since graduating, Alaburda has not found a full-time attorney's job.

As a New York Times story reported, Alaburda is not the first law school graduate to sue her alma mater, but she is the first to get her case to trial. Judges in Illinois, New York and Michigan have dismissed similar suits based on the grounds that the plaintiffs enrolled in law school "at their own peril," and that they were sophisticated enough to realize that they might not find an attorney's job after they graduated.

Thomas M. Cooley Law School was sued under a theory similar to the one put forth by Alaburda, but a Michigan court dismissed the case. Less well known, however, is the fact that Cooley Law School lost a defamation suit against the attorney who brought the misrepresentation suit. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Thomas M. Cooley was a public figure for the purposes of a defamation claim and could not prevail  unless the school could show the lawyer had communicated his accusations maliciously, which it had not done.

I hope Ms. Alaburda wins her lawsuit. As Paul Campos and others have written, the market for lawyers has imploded. There is now approximately one law job for every two law graduates. Law school admissions are down by about 20 percent, and many law schools have lowered their admission standards just to get tuition-paying students through the door.  Meanwhile, the average newly minted JD graduates with more than $100,000 in student-loan debt.

Many students at the second- and third-tier schools do not pass the bar exam after they graduate and are not able to earn an income that will allow them to pay back their student loans. Some have filed for bankruptcy.

Unfortunately, the bankruptcy courts have not always been sympathetic. A few months ago, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Mark Tetzlaff, a graduate of  Florida Coastal School of Law, was not eligible for bankruptcy relief, in spite of the fact that Tetzlaff failed the bar exam, had serious health problems, and hadn't found employment as a lawyer.  In a 2013 decision, a California bankruptcy judge ruled against Mark Lilly, another law school graduate who never found employment as an attorney.

Job prospects for graduates of second- and third-tier law schools are terrible; and thousands of law graduates are burdened with six-figure debt.  In fact, in Don't Go to Law School, Unless, Paul Campos advised students attending down-market law schools to drop out after the first year if they don't excel academically rather than borrow money to continue their studies  In Campos' view, it often makes more sense for a law student to drop out rather than double down and acquire more debt to get a JD degree that won't lead to a high-paying job.

In my view, the law schools have acted irresponsibly to the deteriorating job market for attorneys. Many did not cut their enrollments in response to the plummeting demand for lawyers.  Instead, they lowered their admissions standards in order to keep generating tuition. And according to some law school graduates, at least a few law schools lured people to enroll by misrepresenting the job statistics of their graduates.

If Alaburda wins her case, Thomas Jefferson will appeal. But if she ultimately prevails and gets a money judgment, law schools all over the United States will quake with fear. The law schools have had a good run. They jacked up tuition prices unreasonably and raked in millions of dollars. And students went heavily into debt on the bet that they would get a good lawyer's job that would justify their investment.

But the party is over.  Thousands of unemployed and heavily indebted lawyers deserve some relief. If they are victims of fraud or misrepresentation, I hope they find relief in the state courts. And if they are unable to find remunerative employment as attorneys, I hope they find sympathetic bankruptcy judges who will relieve them of their oppressive student loans and give them an opportunity for a fresh start.

References

Elizabeth Olsen. Law Student Gets Her Day in Court. New York Times, March 6, 2016. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/07/business/dealbook/court-to-hear-suit-accusing-law-school-of-inflating-job-data.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=1

Lilly v. Illinois Student Assistance Comm’n, 538 B.R. 45 (Bankr. S.D. Cal. 2013)

Tetzlaff v. Educational Credit Management Corporation794 F.3d 756 (7th Cir. 2015). Accessible at http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1708687.html

Thomas M. Cooley Law School v. Kurzon Strauss, LLP, 759 F.3d 522 (6th Cir. 2014). Accessible at http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/14a0139p-06.pdf











Predatory for-profit colleges and mandatory arbitration clauses in student contracts: Secretary of Education John B. King Jr. wants to stop for-profits from trying to escape accountability for abuse

In a March 11 press release, the Department of Education announced it is taking steps to protect students from predatory colleges. It's about time. The Obama administration has had seven years to clean up the for-profit college industry, and it has accomplished virtually nothing.

According to the press release, Acting Secretary of Education John B. King Jr. wants to stop colleges from forcing students to sign arbitration agreements that effectively insulate the colleges from liability for their wrongdoing. As DOE explained:
Forced arbitration provisions used by many schools in their enrollment agreements – often buried in the fine print – effectively prevent students from seeking redress for harm caused by their school and hide wrongdoing from the Department and the public. Such agreements often bar students from bringing their legal claims in a group, making it financially impossible for individual students to challenge schools. Some agreements require disputes to be filed in secret tribunals where little or no records are kept; some prohibit students from speaking about the claims they file. The Department will discuss with negotiators how to end such outrageous practices.
 DOE also wants to "incorporate crucial elements of state consumer protection laws" in new regulations. This too is a good thing. But why did DOE wait so long?

And why is DOE seeking to enact reforms through a "negotiated rulemaking process"? These reforms should be nonnegotiable.  All for-profit colleges should be subject to state consumer-protection laws, and all for-profits should be barred from forcing students to sign arbitration clauses that protect the colleges from liability for fraud and wrongdoing.

The next presidential election is eight months away. I predict nothing will get done regarding predatory for-profit colleges before Barack Obama leaves office. And we haven't hear a a peep out of Hillary about cracking down on this sleazy industry. No wonder young voters have rejected her.

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=

Thursday, March 10, 2016

Bernie Sanders and Student Loan Debtors: If you are ovewhelmed by college-loan debt, Bernie is your only hope

Help me, Obi Wan Kenobi. You're my only hope.

Princess Leia
Star Wars

Bernie Sanders beat Hillary Clinton in Michigan--stunning everybody, including Bernie.

Bill O'Reilly scoffed, and pundits dismissed Bernie's victory as a blip; but change is in the wind. Bernie has the support of young people, and Hillary will never win them away. They are attracted to Bernie's clarity and straightforward message.

In particular, Bernie's call for a free college education at a state college is very appealing. And--as I've written before--his free college plan is not wacky. It would actually be cheaper than the cumbersome student aid program we now have in place..

Now I encourage Bernie to reach out specifically to overburdened student-loan debtors--and there are 20 million of them.  If he will make four simple promises to this weary and oppressed multitude, I think he will win over millions of voters to the Bernie Crusade.

And these are the promises:

1) If I am elected President, the federal government will stop garnishing Social Security checks of elderly student-loan defaulters.

2) If I am elected President, I will forbid the government and its debt collectors from slapping unreasonable fees and penalties on student-loan balances.

3) If I become president, student borrowers who complete long-term income-based repayment programs will not be taxed on any forgiven student-loan debt (a policy recommended by President Obama).

4) If I become your President, I will draft regulations forbidding for-profit colleges from requiring students to sign arbitration agreements that cut of their right to sue their college for fraud.

None of these promises are radical, and none are expensive. And in fact, if all four of these promises were fulfilled by the next President, the impact on student-loan debtors would be minimal.

But these promises would be a signal to oppressed student-loan borrowers that Bernie understands their suffering and will do what he can to give them some relief.

But whether or not Bernie makes these particular promises, he has my unwavering support right through the election process. Of all the candidates vying for the Presidency, Bernie is the only one who will do something substantive to address the student-loan crisis.  Indeed, as Princess Leia might have put it, Bernie is our only hope.



Image result for princess leia help me obi wan
Help me, Obi Wan Ka-Bernie. You're my only hope.

Monday, March 7, 2016

UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi accepted compensation from a textbook publisher: She should be fired

Both hands in the cookie jar . . .

Linda Katehi, Chancellor of UC Davis, received $70,000 for serving on the corporate Board of DeVry Education Group, the owner of a for-profit college being scrutinized by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission. In addition, her DeVry position entitled to her to $100,000 in stock, according to the Sacramento Bee.  Not bad for part-time work.

Since then, the public has learned that Katehi received $420,000 in income and stock for serving on the board of John Wiley & Sons, a textbook publisher.  All of this is in addition to her Chancellor's salary of more than $400,000 a year.

What an outrage! And what is Chancellor Katehi's response to the uproar? She resigned from both her DeVry position and her Wiley position, and she promises to donate her Wiley stock to a student scholarship fund.

Katehi: "sincerely regret . . ."

And then of course Katehi released the standard mea culpa press release in which she said this:
I take my responsibilities as Chancellor of UC Davis, and the entire University of California, very seriously and sincerely regret having accepted service on boards that create appearances of conflict with my deep commitment to serve UC Davis and its students.
Note that she admits to accepting service on corporate boards--not that she accepted money.  And she expresses regret, which is far different from apologizing. And she acknowledges the appearance of a conflict--not an actual one. Yeah, I'd say a university president who takes four hundred grand from a textbook publisher has an appearance of conflict.

This lady needs to be fired. In fact, she should have been fired after the UC Davis pepper spray incident of 2011, when university police officers pepper sprayed a group of seated and nonthreatening student protesters. Katehi said she didn't know police were going to use pepper spray on the students, which is something of an excuse, I suppose.

But UC Davis police officers were sued  for firing pepperballs at student bystanders at an outdoor drinking bash that took place in 2004. One victim lost the use of an eye. The Ninth Circuit ultimately ruled that the police had used an unconstitutional level of force against the students.

So if there is anything this overcompensated clown should have gotten right while serving as UC Davis's chancellor it was control of the campus police. Yet an independent report found that UC Davis police were not authorized to use the specific type of pepper spray that they inflicted on students in the 2011 incident and were not trained to use it correctly.

Blah, blah, blah from UC President Napolitano

Incredibly, Katehi's venality is not exceptional. According to a fine article  written by Diana Lambert and Alexei Koseff for the Sacramento Bee, nine UC chancellors accepted $1.5 million in cash compensation from outside corporations during the  years 2012-2014--and that doesn't include stock options or deferred  compensation!

What does UC President Janet Napolitano have to say about Katehi's behavior? "I deeply value Linda's strong record in helping to make UC Davis a world-class center of scholarship and research, and continue to believe in  the value of her contributions to the University."  Blah, blah, blah.

What Napolitano is really saying is this: The University of California protects its insiders.

It is a pity that UC chancellors are not treated like UC students. If there were any justice in the world, all nine moonlighting UC chancellors would be put before a hand-picked squad of untrained UC Davis police officers and assaulted with pepper spray.

Image result for uc davis pepper spray image

References

Diana Lambert and Alexei Koseff. UC Davis chancellor apologizes, will donate textbook stock to student scholarships. Sacramento Bee, March 4, 2016. Accessible at http://www.sacbee.com/news/investigations/the-public-eye/article64041327.html

Nelson v. City of Davis, 685 F.3d 867 (9th Cir. 2012).  Accessible at http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2012/07/11/10-16256.pdf

Teresa Watanabe. UC Davis chancellor apologizes for controversial moonlighting activities. Los Angeles Tims, March 5, 2016. Accessible at http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-uc-davis-chancellor-20160304-story.html

Christopher Edley & C. F. Robinson 2012). Response to Protests on UC Campuses. University of California. http://campusprotestreport.universityofcalifornia.edu/documents/protest-report-091312.pdf
 Richard Fossey. Nelson v. City of Davis: Campus Police Officers Who Injure Nonthreatening Student with Pepper Spray May be Committing a Constitutional Offense. Teachers College Record Online, October 5, 2012. Accessible at: http://www.tcrecord.org/content.asp?contentid=16894

Gordon, L. (2012, September 13).
UC to pay settlement in Davis pepper spray case. Los Angeles Times (online edition). http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/13/local/la-me-uc-pepper-spray-20120914

Steve Gorman. University of California cop who pepper sprayed student protesters awarded $38,000. Reuters, October 23. Accessible at: http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/23/21105239-university-of-california-cop-who-pepper-sprayed-student-protesters-awarded-38000
Judy Lin. Linda Katehi, UC Davis Chancellor, Apologizes for Pepper Spray Incident. Huffington Post, November 22,2013.  Accessible at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/22/linda-katehi-uc-davis-cha_n_1107303.html

Jennifer Medina. Campus Task Forces Criticizes Pepper Srpaying of Protesters. New York Times, April 11, 2012. Accessible at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/12/us/task-force-criticizes-pepper-spraying-of-protesters-at-uc-davis.html?_r=0

Cruz Reynoso. UC Davis Taskforce Report, March 12, 2012.  Accessible athttp://ahed.assembly.ca.gov/sites/ahed.assembly.ca.gov/files/hearings/1.%20Reynoso%20Task%20Force%20Report.pdf

Smith, D. (2012, September 20). Yolo DA won’t file charges in UCD pepper-spraying. Sacramento Bee (online edition).  http://www.sacbee.com/2012/09/20/4836866/yolo-da-wont-file-charges-in-ucd.html#mi_rss=Our%20Region


Stripling, J. (2012, April 11). Scathing report on UC-Davis pepper-spray incident faults chancellor and police.Chronicle of Higher Education (online edition). http://chronicle.com/article/UC-Davis-Pepper-Spray-Report/131496/

Sunday, March 6, 2016

Rising Student-Loan Default Rates and Ridiculously High Tuition Costs: The Big Short

We live in an era of fraud in America. Not just in banking, but in government, education, religion, food, even baseball... What bothers me isn't that fraud is not nice. Or that fraud is mean. For fifteen thousand years, fraud and short sighted thinking have never, ever worked. Not once. Eventually you get caught, things go south. When the hell did we forget all that? I thought we were better than this, I really did
Mark Baum (played by Steve Carell)
The Big Short 

The Big Short, the Academy-Award winning movie on the home-mortgage crisis of 2008, shows movie goers how greedy banking institutions created a housing bubble that burst in a shower of home foreclosures and trillions of dollars in financial losses.

A similar bubble has emerged in the federal student-loan program. And although the housing bubble is more complicated than the student-loan bubble, there are some eerie similarities between the collapse of the housing market a few years ago and the student-loan crisis. For example:

Hiding risk. The Big Short includes a scene in which  Mark Baum, a skeptical investment banker played by Steve Carell, quizzes a representative of one the bond rating agencies--Moody's or Standard & Poor. The rating-agency representative admits that  the agency gives mortgage-backed securities  the highest rating--AAA--even  though the agency knows that many of the instruments are packed with risky home mortgages that are headed for foreclosure.

Something similar is happening in the federal student-loan program. Although the Department of Education recently announced that student-loan default rates went down last year--especially in the for-profit sector, that's not really true.  The for-profits have been aggressively signing up their former students in economic-hardship deferment programs that excuse borrowers from making loan payments without being counted as defaulters.

When we look at the five-year default rates in the for-profit sector, the numbers are scary. Almost half the people who took out student loans to attend a for-profit institution default within 5 years of beginning the repayment phase on their loans. And two years after beginning the repayment phase, 3 out of 4 of these students are seeing their loan balances go up--not down--due to accruing interest that is not being paid down.

In short, about half the people who take out student loans to attend for-profit colleges don't pay back their loans. Clearly, this sector of the student-loan program is a train wreck.

Unsustainable rising costs.  As many people still remember, the cost of housing went up rapidly during the early 2000s, with people buying homes and flipping them for huge profits over a matter of months or even weeks. Everybody was making money in real estate--until the housing market collapsed.

Similarly, America has seen college tuition costs rise faster than the inflation rate for many years. The cost of attending law school, obtaining an MBA, or studying at an elite private college has gone through the roof.  I graduated from University of Texas Law School in 1980 and only paid $1,000 a year in tuition. If I enrolled at UT Law School today, it would cost me 36 times as much--$36,000 a year for Texas residents!

Of course, these tuition hikes can't be justified any more than the dizzying cost of a split-level home in Coral Gables, Florida in 2005.  And of course, those costs must eventually come down.  Already, law school enrollments have plummeted and the schools have lowered admissions standards to attract students.  And the elite private colleges are now giving huge discounts on their posted tuition rates; the average freshman now pays about half the college's sticker price.

Hidden costs and fees. Finally, the home mortgage bubble was fueled by greed and fraud. The bankers who packaged mortgage-backed securities were not taking any risks--they took their fees from the transaction costs.  The banking industry was selling toxic financial instruments to gullible investors, including pension funds and people invested in mutual funds.

Similarly, the college industry is charging a gullible public more than a liberal arts degree is worth, and the suckers enroll because, hey, going to Barnard or Brown or Amherst must be a good investment. And the colleges aren't assuming any risks. Their pliant students are borrowing from the federal student loan program, and the government guarantees the loan. Ivy League U doesn't care if its graduates default on their loans any more than Goldman Sachs cared what happened to the investors who bought their mortgage-backed securities.

And the fees! People who default on their loans get assessed huge collection fees and penalties. People are routinely going into the bankruptcy courts trying to discharge student-loan debt that is two or even three times the amount they borrowed due to accrued interest, penalties, and fees.

So if you haven't seen the Big Short, go see it. And as you watch this riveting drama, think about the student-loan program. A bubble is about to burst at a college near you.


Image result for the big short movie

"I thought we were better than this."

Wednesday, March 2, 2016

Linda Katehi, DeVry University and the UC Pepper Spray Incident: Chancellor Katehi should be fired

UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi, who presided over UC Davis's scandalous pepper-spray incident, got caught with her hand in the cookie jar. Yesterday, she announced she was resigning from the corporate board of DeVry Education Group, owner of DeVry University. DeVry is currently being sued by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission for making false claims about its job placement rates.

Katehi is making at least $400,000 as boss of UC Davis, more than the Governor of California. But apparently that wasn't enough for her.  According to a CBS report, DeVry paid Katehi $70,000 to be on its corporate board.

Why do suppose DeVry put Katehi on its board? Did it appreciate the great judgment she showed after  UC Davis police officers pepper-sprayed peaceful and nonthreatening students who were participating in an Occupy Wall Street demonstration?

Did DeVry admire the way Katehi handled the pepper-spray incident, denying she knew the police were going to use pepper spray and then allowing the university to file charges against the student victims?

Or perhaps DeVry appreciated Katehi's crisis management skills. After all, she hired a a PR flack in the wake of the pepper-spray incident at a salary of $260,000--more than a quarter of the amount UC Davis paid the pepper-spray victims to settle their lawsuit.

Or maybe DeVry was impressed by Katehi's transparency.  UC Davis refused to turn over the names of the police officers who were involved in the pepper-spray assault for more than two years. In fact, it did not release the names of the officers until it lost a court battle with the Sacramento Bee.

No, we all know why for-profit universities put high-profile figures like Chancellor Katehi on their governing boards. They do it to buy influence, credibility and political cover.

In my opinion, the University of California should fire Katehi for gross misjudgment. Everyone knows that America's for-profit colleges are ripping off vulnerable and unsophisticated students, that they charge too much, and that their student-loan default rates are shockingly high.  For Katehi, who bungled UC Davis's pepper-spay scandal and who is overpaid, to glom on to an extra 70,000 clams by serving on DeVry University's board is disgraceful.

Image result for linda katehi uc davis
Linda Katehi, Chancellor of UC Davis 

References

Brad Branan. UC Davis cuts PR post that drew criticism for its $260,000 salary. Sacramento Bee, September 26, 2015. Accessible at http://www.sacbee.com/news/investigations/the-public-eye/article36715044.html

Paul Collins. That's Rich.  The chancellor of UC Davis is a bona fide 1 percenter. Slate, March 5, 2012.  Accessible at: http://www.slate.com/articles/life/moneybox/2012/03/uc_davis_chancellor_linda_katehi_s_salary_makes_her_a_member_of_the_1_percent_.html http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/6021:forprofit-kaplan-university-pays-executives-a-quarter-billion-dollars-courtesy-of-students-and-taxpayers

Larry Gordon (2012, September 13). UC to pay settlement in Davis pepper spray case. Los Angeles Times (online edition). http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/13/local/la-me-uc-pepper-spray-20120914

Scott Jaschik. Davis Will Drop Charges Against, Pay Medical Bills of Pepper Spray Students. Inside Higher Ed, November 23, 2011. Available at https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2011/11/23/davis-will-drop-charges-against-pay-medical-bills-pepper-spray-students

Sam Stanton. Bee wins legal battle for names of UC Davis officers in pepper spray incident. Sacramento Bee, August 21, 2014. Available at http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article2607394.html

Danny Weil. For-Profit Kaplan University Pays Executives a Quarter Billion Dollars, Courtesy of Students and Taxpayers. Truth-out.org, January 14, 2012. Accessible at http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/6021:forprofit-kaplan-university-pays-executives-a-quarter-billion-dollars-courtesy-of-students-and-taxpayers

Tuesday, March 1, 2016

The Student-Loan Bubble: Will the rising level of student-loan indebtedness lead to a national economic catastrophe?


This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.


T.S. Eliot                       
The Hollow Men            

In recent years, I have heard speculation that the federal student-loan program is similar to the real estate bubble that developed in the early years of this century and which ultimately led to the national financial meltdown of 2008.  Does the student loan program have the potential for running our economy into the ditch?

I once discounted this notion. After all, the home-mortgage crisis involved a lot more money than the federal student-loan program.  It is true that Americans now owe about $1.3 trillion in student loans, which is not chicken feed. But compared to the national debt--about $19 trillion--the student-loan program doesn't seem like a big deal. After all, the government's quantitative easing program involved the creation of $1 trillion a year when it was in full swing.

But I'm beginning to think differently about the student-loan crisis based on these considerations:

Enormous growth in student-loan debt. First of all, total student-loan indebtedness has grown enormously over the past 10 years. According to a recent report by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, total outstanding indebtedness grew from  around $400 billion in 2007 to more than $1.2 trillion in 2015. In other words, total indebtedness tripled in less than 10 years.

Indeed, as has been widely reported, student loans now comprise the second largest category of consumer debt, surpassed only by home mortgages.  Student -loan indebtedness is now larger than both automobile loans and credit card debt.

More student-loan debtors.  Second, the total amount of student-loan borrowers keeps growing--43 million people now have outstanding student loans. That's almost 18 percent of the nation's adult population.

High loan default rates. Third, student-loan default rates are distressingly high. Although the U.S. Department of Education reported recently that three-year default rates are dropping, the drop is deceptive. Three-year default rates are dropping because the Department of Education and the college industry are encouraging students to obtain economic-hardship deferments or other form of forbearance that excuse former students from making monthly loan payments. But the fact remains that a high percentage of borrowers in the repayment phase of their loans aren't making payments,

In fact, as the Brookings Institute reported, 5-year default rates are 28 percent.  In the for-profit sector, the five-year default rates is an eye-popping 47 percent! Given the catastrophic consequences of default, it is astonishing that almost half the people who attend for-profit colleges eventually default on their loans.

Discounted tuition rates. Finally, private colleges are discounting their tuition rates more and more, an indication that American families simply refuse to pay the sticker price for a college education.  According to an article in Inside Higher Ed, private colleges are now discounting tuition for freshman students by an average of 48 percent!

Obviously, the federal government can't go on forever lending ever larger quantities of money and expecting students to passively take out larger and larger loans for the privilege of going to college.

So yes, there is a student-loan bubble; and the bubble is going to burst. When? I don't know, but I think we will see growing turmoil in the for-profit-college industry and the private-college sector. Within five years, we will see a significant number of non-elite private colleges bite the dust. And we will see increasing pressure on the for-profit colleges.

But when the bubble bursts, I don't think we will witness a spectacular meltdown in the economy that we saw in 2008. To borrow a phrase from T. S. Eliot, the federal student loan program is not going to explode with a bang, but with a whimper.  And the people who will be whimpering most are the millions of people--probably 20 million--who simply cannot pay back their student loans and who cannot discharge them in bankruptcy.

In my opinion, everyone in the higher education industry should be praying for more compassionate bankruptcy judges who are willing to discharge billions of dollars in student-loan debt and give millions of distressed borrowers a fresh start. If distressed student-loan borrowers don't obtain some form of tangible relief, we are going to see a shrinking middle class and a class of lifetime student-loan debtors who have been pushed to the sidelines of the national economy by student loan debt from which they cannot shake free.  In other words, as I have said before, we are hurdling hell-bent toward a sharecropper economy.

References

Jesse Bricker, Meta Brown, Simona Hannon, and Karen Pence. How Much Debt Is Out There? FEDS Notes, August 7, 2015. Accessible at http://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/notes/feds-notes/2015/how-much-student-debt-is-out-there-20150807.html

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

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

Karyne Williams. Federal Reserve Bank of New York Takes On Student Debt Crisis in New Blog Series. Generation Progress, February 27, 2015. Accessible at http://genprogress.org/voices/2015/02/27/35083/federal-reserve-bank-of-new-york-takes-on-student-debt-crisis-in-new-blog-series/