Betsy DeVos says students defrauded by for-profit colleges may only get partial debt relief

As Martin Luther King wrote from the Birmingham Jail, justice too long delayed is justice denied. And of course justice that is not only delayed but incomplete is nothing more than a cynical parody of justice.

As everyone knows, hundreds of thousands of students took out student loans to attend for-profit colleges and paid too much for their educational experiences. Often they got no benefit from their studies. Student-default rates for these students are shocking. Almost 50 percent in a recent cohort defaulted within five years of beginning repayment. Three out of four African Americans who attended for-profit schools eventually default--which is a scandal.

And many students were defrauded by the for-profit colleges they attended. Last year, Corinthian Colleges had a judgment entered against it in California for more than a billion dollars based on findings of fraud and misrepresentation.

The Obama administration, to its credit, crafted regulations whereby students could apply to the Department of Education to have their student loans forgiven if they were defrauded by the college they attended. Thousands of students who were enrolled at one of the Corinthian campuses applied for loan forgiveness based on fraud claims.

Betsy DeVos stopped the implementation of the Obama regulations, saying she feared students would get "free money." She then appointed a panel of experts to draft new regulations, which won't be approved until next year. In fact, under the DeVos scheme, defrauded students will not be able to move forward on their claims until 2019 at the earliest.

And it appears, many students will not get complete relief from their loans even if they can prove they were defrauded.  DeVos is talking about giving partial relief based on a formula that will compare the defrauded student's earnings to the average earnings among people who participated in similar educational programs.

The cynicism of this approach is shocking. First of all, by delaying the administrative process until 2019, DeVos is giving fraud students only three options for handling their student debt. First, they can continue making loan payments on educational experiences that are worthless. Second, they can enter income-based repayment plans that will set monthly payments so low that the interest on their debt will continue to accrue, making their total indebtedness grow larger. Or third, they can default on their loans, which will ruin their credit and cause their debt to grow larger from fees and penalties that the debt collectors tack on to their original debt.

DeVos's tactic is nothing more than cynical manipulation to aid the for-profit industry. If Congress had a moral compass and some courage, DeVos's behavior would lead to a formal resolution calling for her resignation.

Betsy DeVos' summer home

References

Gail Collins. No Profit in Betsy DeVos. New York Times, October 27, 2017.

Maria Danilova. DeVos may only partially wipe away some student loans. Detroit News, October 28, 2017.

Andrew Kreighbaum. Education Department sets up standards for partial relief of defrauded borrowers. Inside Higher Ed, December 21, 2017.

Tamar Lewin. Questions Follow Leader of For-Profit Colleges. New York Times,May 26, 2011.

Bob Samuels. The For-Profit College Bubble: Exploiting the Poor to Give to the Rich. Huffington Post, May 25, 2011.

It's official: The Republicans hate student-loan debtors

A few days ago, Republicans introduced their bill for revising the Higher Education Act. Some provisions in the GOP proposal are astonishing in their cruelty and contempt for student debtors.

• Abolishing income-drive repayment plans. For starters, the Republicans want to end all student-loan forgiveness. Goodbye PAYE. Goodbye REPAY. Students who can't pay off their loans under the standard 10-year repayment plan will be forced into income-driven repayment plans that continue until their loans are paid off--which for many of them will be never.

• Abolishing the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program. The GOP wants to abolish the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program, which Congress created in 2007. Hundreds of thousands of students have entered into public-service jobs expecting to have their college loans forgiven after 10 years. If the Republican proposal becomes law, some of these people may be grandfathered into the PSLF program, but the program will be shut down.

• Forbidding states from enforcing consumer protection laws against student loan servicers. Buried on page 464 of the GOP's bill is a provision that forbids states from regulating the student-loan serving companies.  Some state AGs have vigorously pursued wrongdoers in the loan servicing business, and Republicans apparently want to shield the debt collectors from state consumer protection laws.

Where are these pernicious Republican ideas coming from? Representative Virginia Foxx (R-NC) is Chair of the House Education Committee, and she supports all these nasty proposals. But Foxx is not pulling the strings. These toxic proposals are coming from the heart of the Trump administration--and undoubtedly from Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos.

I don't know if these punitive GOP proposals will make it into federal law. But if they do, Republicans will push millions of college borrowers into a lifetime of indebtedness.  It's almost as if the GOP wants to create an underclass of sharecroppers.

President Trump and his fiendish Secretary of Education (who has financial ties to the debt collection business) may think their scheme to punish student borrowers will play to the Republican base. But if these proposals get through Congress, there will be hell to pay in coming elections.  

The Democrats are missing a golden opportunity if they don't take up the banner of student-debt relief.  In my view, they should forget Russia and turn their venom toward Betsy DeVos, who may be Trump's Achillese heel. The Dems need to educate college borrowers about the nation's venal Secretary of Education and rouse them to righteous fury.

Betsy DeVos summer home: Maybe you could get a job there as pool boy

References

Douglas Belkin, Josh Mitchell, & Melissa Korn. House GOP to Propose Sweeping Changes to Higher Education. Wall Street Journal, November 29, 2017.

Jillian Berman. House Republicans seek to roll back state laws protecting student loan borrowers. Marketwatch.com, December 7, 2017.

Danielle Douglas-Gabriel. GOP higher ed plan would end student loan forgiveness in repayment program, overhaul federal financial aid. Washington Post, December 1, 2017.

Danielle Douglas-Gabriel. Dems raise concern about possible links betwen DeVos and student debt collection agency. Washington Post, January 17, 2017.

Steve Rhode. GOP Proposed Change to Higher Education Act to Gut Consumers and Debt Relief Companies. Get Out of Debt Guy, December 5, 2017.

Representative Alma Adams urges limited loan forgiveness for Charlotte Law School Students: Adams' plea does not go far enough

Representative Alma Adams, Democratic congresswoman from North Carolina, wrote a letter to Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, urging DeVos to forgive student loans held by students who attended Charlotte School of Law (CSL) from December 2016 until the school was shut down last August.

Representatives G.K. Butterfield and David Price, also from North Carolina, joined Adams in the letter.  The three laid out a seething indictment of CSL, which has been in trouble for a couple of years. The American Bar Association put CSL on probation in October 2016 for misrepresenting the law school's accreditation status and bar passage rates. And the Department of Education yanked the school's eligibility for federal student aid a few months later. Finally, in August 2017, the North Carolina Board of Governors pulled CSL's license to operate--dealing a death blow to the school.

 Without question, CSL was a train wreck. The troubled school had high dropout rates and abominable bar passage rates. Only about a third (35 percent) of CSL graduates passed the North Carolina bar exam in February 2016, compared to 51 percent statewide.  According to Adams and her colleagues, this passage rate would have been even lower if the law school had not paid CSL students not to take the exam. Moreover, the North Carolina legislators alleged, CSL students racked up an average of $200,000 in student-loan debt. Those who were enrolled when the school closed have little hope of having their credits accepted at another law school.

Under current Department of Education regulations, students are eligible for student-loan forgiveness if they were enrolled at a school at the time it closed or up to 120 days prior to closure. The regulations give the Education Secretary the authority to extend the 120-day enrollment requirement if circumstances warrant; and Adams and her colleagues asked DeVos to grant loan forgiveness to all students were enrolled at CSL from December 2016 until the day it closed.

Representatives Adams, Butterfield and Price are to be commended for seeking relief for recent CSL students, but their petition does not go far enough. In my view, every student who attended CSL from the day it opened until the day it closed should be granted student-loan forgiveness--without exception.

Before it shut down, CSL was one of the worst law schools in the United States by almost any measure. Based on metrics developed by Law School Transparency, a public interest law-school monitoring organization, 50 percent of CSL's 2014 entering class ran an "extreme" risk of failing the bar exam, and additional 25 percent ran a "very high" risk of failing the exam.

And it fact, less than half of CSL's 2015 graduating class passed the bar. Moreover, less than 25 percent of its 2016 graduates obtained full-time law jobs; and the law school's underemployment rate for that class was 58.8 percent.

Without question, a lot of former CSL students believe they were defrauded by their law school. According to an Inside Higher Ed story, more than 500 former students filed "borrower defense" claims based on allegations of fraud, and several class-action suits have been filed against the school.

Based on CSL's abysmal record, the only fair thing DeVos can do is wipe out all student-loan debt for every individual who took out student loans to attend CSL. And then DOE needs to take a close look at the other for-profit law schools that are still operating. All law schools with bar pass rates below 50 percent should be closed.

Rep. Alma Adams (in hat). Photo credit: Scott Applewhite AP

References

William Douglas. N.C. Democrats urge Charlotte Law School student loan forgiveness.  The News & Observer, November 6, 2017.

Andrew Kreighbaum, Department Lays Out of Options for Charlotte Students. Inside Higher ED, August 25, 2017.

Andrew Kreighbaum, The Slow Death of a For-Profit Law School. Inside Higher Ed, August 16, 2017.

Hawaii Supreme Court strikes down a school's arbitration agreement as unconscionable: For-profit colleges take notice

The Hawai'i Supreme Court strikes down a school's arbitration agreement as unconscionable

Arbitration agreements have long been favored by the courts, which traditionally have seen arbitration as an inexpensive alternative to lengthy, costly litigation. For years, courts have routinely upheld the enforceability of arbitration agreements and they have been exceedingly reluctant to overturn an arbitrator's decision.

But in recent years, courts in some states have become increasingly willing to invalidate an arbitration agreement when it is clear that the agreement contains terms that are unfair.  Recently, the Hawai'i Supreme Court, in the case of Gabriel v. Island Pacific Academy, ruled that an arbitration agreement that blocked a teacher from suing her former employer was unconscionable.

Laura Gabriel filed suit in a Hawai'i state court, charging that Island Pacific Academy had retaliated against her for filing a sex discrimination complaint by refusing to hire her for the 2014-2015 school year. Gabriel had signed an arbitration agreement promising to settle disputes with her employer through arbitration, and Island Pacific asked the trial court to dismiss Gabriel's complaint and to force Gabriel to pursue her claims against the school through arbitration.

The trial court ruled that the arbitration agreement was enforceable except for one provision. The agreement required Gabriel to deposit one half of the estimated arbitration costs as a precondition to arbitration. This fee amounted to $10,200, which equaled one-third to one-fourth of Gabriel's annual salary.  The trial judge ruled that this provision was unconscionable and ordered Island Pacific to pay all arbitration costs when Gabriel's claims were arbitrated.

Gabriel appealed, and the Hawai'i Supreme Court reversed. The supreme court agreed with the lower court that the arbitration agreement's fee-splitting provision was unconscionable but concluded that
unconscionable terms pervaded the whole agreement and thus the agreement should be invalidated in its entirety.

In addition to the fee-splitting provision, the Hawai'i Supreme Court identified another uunfair provision. The agreement required Gabriel to pay Island Pacific's total "damages, costs, expenses and attorney's fees" if she challenged the arbitration agreement in court even if she won her lawsuit. "This provision is plainly substantively unconscionable," Hawai'i's highest court ruled, "and must be stricken as well."

After the fee-splitting provision and the cost-shifting provision were struck from the agreement, the court pointed, the agreement only contained one sentence. Therefore, it was appropriate to invalidate the whole agreement and allow Gabriel to sue the school in court.

For-profit colleges force their students to agree not to sue them as a condition of enrollment

Although the Island Pacific lawsuit did not involve a postsecondary student, it may be relevant to college students who attend for-profit colleges. Many of these students signed arbitration agreements as a condition of enrollment and then discovered that they had been defrauded.

These students might be able to get those arbitration agreements invalidated in a state court on the grounds that the agreements are unconscionable. No doubt many of these agreements have cost-shifting and fee-splitting provisions like the Island Pacific agreement.

Last year, a California appellate court invalidated an arbitration agreement forced on students attending a for-profit program on the grounds of basic unfairness. Among other things, the agreement required California students to arbitrate their claims in Indiana.

Likewise, the New Jersey Supreme Court struck down an arbitration provision in a for-profit school's student-enrollment agreement simply because the clause was printed in very small type and was phrased in such murky language that students might not know they were giving up legal rights by signing the agreement.

Congress and the Department of Education are shielding fraudulent for-profit colleges from being sued

Although state courts seem increasingly inclined to strike down arbitration agreements that disfavor vulnerable parties, Congress and the Department of Education have acted counter to this judicial impulse.

For example, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau recently tried to stop corporate entities from using arbitration agreements to block lawsuits against them. The CFPB adopted a rule that would have barred financial services institutions from requiring their customers to sign arbitration agreements.

But Congress--acting in the interest of corporations and not consumers--passed a law overturning the CFPB rule.  In the Senate, the vote was tied at 50 to 50. Not a single Democratic senator voted for the bill and two Republican senators (Lindsay Graham of South Carolina and Louisiana's John Kennedy) voted against it. Vice President Mike Pence broke the tie by joining with Republican colleagues to trash the CFPB rule.

Likewise, the Obama administration's Department of Education drafted regulations that would have prevented for-profit colleges from forcing students to sign arbitration agreements. Obama's DOE was motivated by the conviction that arbitration agreements disfavored students in favor of for-profit colleges and prevented them from banding together to file class action suits.

Unfortunately, Betsy DeVos blocked those regulations, allowing sleazy for-profits to continue forcing students to sign arbitration agreements.

In the current political climate, it does not seem likely that Congress or the Department of Education will come to the aid of students who are being ripped off by for-profit colleges.  It could be that state courts  are more sympathetic to students who were forced to waive their right to sue. Students can challenge unfair arbitration agreements in court. Unfortunately, to do so, students will need good lawyers.

References

Donna Borak and Ted Barrett.Senate kills rule that made it easier to sue banks. CNN.com, October 25, 2017.

Richard Fossey. Why students need better protection from loan fraud. Chicago Tribune, August 25, 2017.

Gabriel v. Island Pacific Academy, Inc., 400 P.3d 526 (Hawai'i 2017).

Andrew Kreighbaum. Few Solutions for Defrauded Borrowers. Inside Higher Ed, June 26, 2017.

Magno v. The College Network, Inc.. (Cal. Ct. App. 2016). Accessible at http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1741812.html

Morgan v. Sanford Brown Institute, 137 A.3d 1168 (N.J. 2016).

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?

Matt Taibbi's Rolling Stone article on student debt crisis: You should read it

If you believe in social justice and basic human decency, you must read Matt Taibbi's article on the student-loan crisis that appeared this month in Rolling Stone.

Writing in the tradition of great American investigative journalism, Taibbi deconstructs "the great college loan swindle" that is destroying the lives of millions. Taibbi illustrates his theme by telling the story of two swindled student debtors: Scott Nailor and Veronica Martish.

Scott Nailor, a thirty-seven year-old school teacher, has contemplated suicide because he is chained to college loans he will never pay off. Nailor borrowed $35,000 to get a degree from the University of Southern Maine, which qualified him for a job as a school teacher.

This debt, which might seem modest to some people, was barely manageable on Nailor's salary as a school teacher, which initially paid just $18,000. He and his wife consolidated their student debt, which had grown to $50,000. Then the couple declared bankruptcy, but they did not discharge their student loans.

Today, Taibbi wrote, Nailor makes monthly payments of $471 a month on student-loan debt that has grown to $100,000.  None of his payments go to paying down the principal. "I will never be able to pay it off," Nailor told Taibbi. "My only escape from this is to die."

And Taibbi also tells the story of Veronica Martish, a 68-year-old veteran from the Vietnam War. In 1989, she borrowed $8,000 to take courses at Quinebaug Valley Community College. Due to family problems, Martish fell behind on her loan payments and entered a loan rehabilitation program. By this time, her $8,000 had grown to $27,000 due to fees and interest tacked on by one of the federal government's debt collectors.

Martish told Taibbi that she had paid a total of $63,000 on her $8,000 student loan, but has yet to pay off the principal. By the time she dies, Martish estimates her loan balance will have grown to $200,000. "Nothing ever comes off the loan," she explained. "It's all interest and fees."

These stories may seem incredible to you, but in fact they are all too common. In fact, the bankruptcy courts have chronicled similar experiences when student-loan debtors stagger into bankruptcy court. Remember Brenda Butler, who paid $15,000 on $14,000 in student loans? Twenty years after graduating from college, she owed $32,000--twice what she borrowed. A bankruptcy judge refused to wipe out her student loans. She should stay in a long-term repayment plan, the judge advised--a plan that will not end until 42 years after Butler graduated from college.

And how about Alan and Catherine Murray, the Kansas couple who borrowed $77,000 to pay for undergraduate and graduate degrees? They made $54,000 in loan payments--about 70 percent of the principle.  Yet 20 years after finishing their studies, their accumulated student-loan debt had ballooned to $311,000--more than four times what they borrowed.

Millions of people have seen their student loans grow exponentially due to fees and unpaid interest. When that happens, a debtor's only option is to sign up for an income-driven repayment plan (IDR) that can last from 20 to 25 years. But these plans generally set monthly payments so low that the payments don't reduce the principal on the debt.  College debtors on IDRs see their loan balances grow larger and larger with each passing month even when they faithfully make their loan payments.

This was the situation Scott Nailor found himself in. No wonder he contemplated suicide.

And it gets worse. When all those millions of people in IDRs make their last monthly payment, the remaining balance on their loans will be forgiven; but the IRS considers the forgiven amount to be taxable income.

Does anyone in Congress give a damn? I don't think so. And Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, whose family has profited from the debt-collection industry, certainly doesn't give a damn.

And so America descends into an era of shocking exploitation perpetrated by colleges, the federal government, and the debt-collection industry.

I will end this reflection by quoting a paragraph from Taibbi's searing essay:

It's a multiparty affair, what shakedown artists call a "big store scheme," like in the movie The Sting: a complex deception requiring a big cast to string the mark along every step of the way. In higher education, every party you meet, from the moment you first set foot on campus, is in on the game.

Donald Trump and Betsy DeVos: the "big store" scheme

References

Butler v. Educational Credit Management Corporation, No. 14-71585, Adv. No. 14-07069 (Bankr. C.D. Ill. Jan. 27, 2016).

Murray v. Educational Credit Management Corporation, CASE NO. 14-22253, CHAPTER 7, ADV. NO. 15-6099 (Bankr. D. Kan. Dec. 8, 2016), aff'd, No. 16-2838 (D. Kan. Sept. 22, 2017).

Matt Taibbi. (2017, October). The Great College Loan Swindle. Rolling Stone.

140 people a day die from opioid overdoses, but 3,000 people a day default on their student loans

Approximately 52,000 Americans died from opioid overdoses in 2015. That's an average rate of  around 140 deaths a day. In fact, opioid overdose is now the leading cause of death for Americans under age 50.  If we continue at this rate, a half million Americans will die from drug overdoses over the next ten years--roughly nine times as many Americans as were killed in the Vietnam War.

But let's compare the opioid crisis to the student-loan disaster.  Last year, 1.1 million Americans defaulted on student loans; that's an average rate of 3,000 people a day.  Obviously, defaulting on a student loan is not as serious as dying from a drug overdose. Nevertheless, the consequences of student-loan default are catastrophic.

First of all, a student-loan default triggers penalties and fees that are attached to the unpaid debt, making it less likely that the debtor will ever pay off his or her student loans. Secondly, student-loan defaulters cannot take out more student loans to obtain additional education or training. Third, unlike most unsecured loans, student loans are very difficult to discharge in bankruptcy.

In short, people who default on their student loans run a good chance of becoming lifetime debtors who will never improve their economic circumstances. In other words, a student-loan default is often the equivalent of an economic death sentence.

People who attend for-profit colleges have the highest student-loan default rates. A Brookings Institution report documented that almost half of the people in  a recent cohort who borrowed money to attend a for-profit school defaulted within five years.  Another analysis reported that three out of four African Americans who attended for-profit colleges eventually default on their loans.

In my opinion, a good case can be made that the student-loan catastrophe is causing more harm than the opioid epidemic.  Around 44 million Americans have student-loan debt; that's about one American in five. College-loan indebtedness is hampering people's ability to buy homes, save for retirement, and purchase health insurance. Without question, millions of Americans would have been better off if they had never pursued postsecondary education because the indebtedness they took on degraded the quality of their lives rather than enhanced it.

And Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos has has made the student-debt crisis worse. Again and again, she has made decisions that favor the corrupt for-profit industry at the expense of struggling student loan debtors, even debtors who were defrauded by for-profit colleges.

To its credit, the Obama administration crafted regulations whereby students could apply to the Department of Education to have their student loans forgiven if they were defrauded by the college they attended. Thousands of students have applied for loan forgiveness based on fraud claims, including students who borrowed money to attend two bankrupt for-profit institutions: ITT Tech and Corinthian Colleges.

The Obama regulations were to have taken effect on July 1, 2017, but Betsy DeVos stopped the implementation of these regulations, saying she feared students would get "free money." She then appointed a panel of experts to draft new regulations, which won't be approved until next year. In fact, under the DeVos scheme, defrauded students will not be able to move forward on their claims until 2019 at the earliest.

And it appears that many students will not get complete relief from their loans even if they can prove they were defrauded.  DeVos is talking about giving partial relief based on a formula that will compare the defrauded student's earnings to the average earnings among people who participated in similar educational programs.

The cynicism of this approach is shocking. First of all, by delaying the administrative process until 2019, DeVos is giving fraud victims only three options for handling their oppressive student debt. First, they can continue making loan payments on educational experiences that are worthless to them. Second, they can enter income-based repayment plans that will set monthly payments so low that the interest on their debt will continue to accrue, making their total indebtedness grow larger. Or third, they can default on their loans, which will ruin their credit and cause their debt to grow larger from fees and penalties that the debt collectors tack on to their original debt.

DeVos's tactic is nothing more than sneaky manipulation to aid the for-profit industry, which does not want fraud claims to be examined. If Congress had a moral compass and some courage, DeVos's behavior would lead to a formal resolution calling for her resignation.

Unfortunately, Congress is as beholden to the for-profit colleges as Betsy DeVos. The for-profits have used lobbyists and strategic campaign contributions to buy Congress's silence; and at least a few of our federal representatives (Senators Olympia Snowe and Dianne Feinstein, for example) have personally profited from ties to the for-profit college industry.

And thus our elected representatives are willing to allow millions of lives to be destroyed and the integrity of higher education to be degraded rather than reform the federal student-loan program.  In sum, Congress is willing to tolerate human suffering that may exceed the harm caused by opioid addiction.

References

Maria Danilova. DeVos may only partially wipe away some student loans. Detroit News, October 28, 2017.

Josh Katz. Drug Deaths in America are Rising Faster Than Ever. New York Times, June 5, 2017.

Tamar Lewin. Questions Follow Leader of For-Profit Colleges. New York Times,May 26, 2011.

Ben Miller. New Federal Data Show a Student Loan Crisis for African American Borrowers. Center for American Progress, October 16, 2017.

Bob Samuels. The For-Profit College Bubble: Exploiting the Poor to Give to the Rich. Huffington Post, May 25, 2011.

The Wrong Move on Student Loans. New York Times, April 6, 2017.

Why Does the Department of Education Hate Student Loan Debtors Just So Much? Article by Steve Rhode

By Steve Rhode on October 25, 2017

If I was ever to get into an academic research argument on the role of government, this would be the time. Frankly I’m just getting pissed off by the apparent disregard for student loan debtors by the Trump Department of Education. And before you react that this is a Trump reaction, it’s not. This is an outrage and embarrassment of the actions taken collectively against consumers and student when it comes to student loan debt.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. – Source

The last administration was trying to protect students from being misled by schools to enroll them based on false promises and employment assertions. That’s been significantly halted.

The previous administration expanded the Borrower Defense to Repayment program to allow students who had been defrauded by their schools a chance to have their loans forgiven and the loans clawed back from the schools. That’s been significantly halted.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is suing Navient over poor student loan servicing and Navient says it has no duty to provide good advice to student loan debtors. The Department of Education is not participating in that fight by backing up the CFPB and in fact has said they will stop sharing information with the CFPB.

Now we will have to see what the Department of Education does next on this. The student loan lending industry is making the argument to the Department of Education they should not be subject to state probes into their industry. The position is the federal law and should prevent states from investigating the abusive practices of the student loan industry.

Just to show you how crazy this has all become, even Texas thinks this argument is crap and Texas has typically been the business comes first state.

“Joining a bipartisan coalition of 25 states, Attorney General Ken Paxton today called on U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos to reject a campaign by student loan servicers and debt collectors to dismantle state oversight of the student loan industry. In recent years, Texas and other states investigated and prosecuted a number of student loan industry abuses, winning settlements in the tens of millions of dollars for vulnerable student borrowers.

In a letter to Secretary DeVos, Attorney General Paxton and his counterparts point out that the student loan industry continues to lobby the U.S. Department of Education for more control and autonomy at a time when it is still in urgent need of reform.” – Source

If the Department of Education was doing anything to hold schools and lenders accountable for the massive levels of student loan debt issued with fraud and serviced with incompetence then maybe all of these events would not matter, because they would not happen or be allowed to continue.

But I’ve got an old expression for you: If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

*******

This article appeared on the Personal Finance Syndication Network web site and also on The Get Out of Debt Guy site. Steve Rhode is the Get Out of Debt Guy and has been helping good people with bad debt problems since 1994. You can learn more about Steve here.

Like a Galapagos tortoise, Education Department ponders debt relief for students victimized by the for-profit colleges

Corinthian Colleges filed for bankruptcy in 2015, and ITT Tech went bankrupt a year later. Together, the two for-profit college companies left more than half a million students and former students in the lurch. Thousands of these victims filed so-called borrower-defense claims with the Department of Education, asking DOE to forgive their student loans on the grounds that they were defrauded.

The Obama administration approved regulations for processing these claims, but Betsy DeVos put them on hold. She was concerned, she said, that the Obama rules might give undeserving students "free money."

Now DOE has approved a panel of 17 experts to overhaul the Obama regulations. According to a story in Inside Higher Ed, the DeVos Department anticipates the new rules won't go into effect until 2019. Under that timetable, defrauded borrowers won't even have an avenue of relief until four years after Corinthian filed for bankruptcy.

Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of student borrowers who attended one of the Corinthian schools, ITT Tech, and dozens of other dodgy for-profit colleges will be making monthly loan payments for worthless education experiences. Hundreds of thousands of others will put their loans into deferment, which will relieve them from making loan payments but will cause their loan balances to go up due to accruing interest. And thousands more will simply default, which will allow the federal government's sleazy loan collectors to slap on penalties and fees to their loan balances.

But DeVos doesn't give a damn about the carnage wreaked by the corrupt for-profit college industry. In fact, she is doing everything she can to prop it up.

And so, Betsy DeVos, Amway heiress and for-profit co-conspirator, lumbers along like a Galapagos tortoise, oblivious to the misery experienced by millions of student debtors--who are now defaulting at the rate of 3,000 a day.

The DeVos Education Department ponders student-loan debt relief.

References

Danielle Douglas-Gabriel. Former ITT Tech students fight for some money in the company's bankruptcy case. Los Angeles Times, January 3, 2016.

Andrew Kreighbaum. Education Dept. Borrower-Defense Negotiators. Inside Higher Ed, October 26, 2017.

Shahien Nasiripour. Corinthian Colleges files for bankruptcy. Huffington Post, May 5, 2015.

The Wrong Move on Student Loans. New York Times, April 6, 2017.

Long-term student-loan repayment rates are shockingly low: A new report from the National Center for Education Statistics

Last month, the Department of Education released its latest report on three-year default rates for the 2014 cohort of student borrowers. DOE reported a three-year default rate of 11.5 percent, up slightly from the Department's 2016 report.

A student-loan default rate of 11.5 percent doesn't seem so bad. After all, nearly 90 percent of the 2014 cohort are not in default.

But wait a minute. Instead of looking at default rates, let's look at repayment rates. How  many people are paying off their loans?

It's not a pretty picture. A few days ago, the National Center for Education Statistics produced a report on student-loan repayment rates; and the NCES's findings are alarming. The report is packed with incomprehensible, technical jargon and far too many tables and appendices, but if you dig around in the report,  you get to the heart of the matter.

Among borrowers who were first-time students in 1995-1996 (more than 20 years ago), less than half had paid off their loans by 2015. According to NCES, only 41.3 percent of the students in this cohort had paid off their loans 20 years after first entering postsecondary education.

What is the status of the other 59 percent? About 31 percent were still making payments in 2015, 13.8 percent had their loans in deferment, and 13.7 percent were in default.

In the 2003-2004 cohort of borrowers, only 23.5 percent had paid off their loans 12 years after beginning their studies. Three quarters of borrowers in this cohort were still making payments, had loans in deferment, or were in default.

As we would expect, student borrowers who obtained bachelor's degrees or higher had the best repayment rates. Nevertheless, in the 1995-96 cohort, only half of these people had paid off their student loans twenty years after they first enrolled in college.

The bottom line is this.  By giving out deferments and encouraging student debtors to enter long-term repayment plans, the Department of Education has kept its official student-loan default rates artificially low. But the fact remains that almost 60 percent of a cohort borrowers who took out student loans in the mid-nineties had not paid off their loans 20 years later.

And remember, people in the repayment phase who aren't paying down their loans or who are making token payments are seeing their loan balances grow larger with each passing month. An individual who hasn't paid back his or her student loans after 20 years is probably never going to pay them back because the loan balance is out of control.

That should scare Betsy DeVos and her minions at DOE. But she is focused on propping up the for-profit college industry and not the appalling data that show that a majority of college borrowers cannot pay off their student loans even when given 20 years to do so.

Presiding over a looming disaster

References

Andrew Kreighbaum. Post-Recession Borrowers Struggle to Repay Loans. Inside Higher Ed, October 5, 2017.

Jennie H. Woo, Alexander H. Bentz, Stephen Lew, Erin Dunlop Velez, Nichole Smith, RTI International,  (2017, October). Repayment  of Student Loans as of 2015 Among 1995-96 and 2003-04 First-Time Beginning Students. First Look (NCES 2018-410). U.S. Department of Education. Washington DC; National Center for Education Statistics. [Sean A Simone, Project Officer]

Betsy DeVos sabotages Obama's borrower-defense rule for processing student borrowers' fraud claims: She fears students will get "free money"

The collapse of Corinthian Colleges and ITT Tech shined a light on the seedy for-profit college industry.  Both for-profit college companies filed for bankruptcy under a cloud of accusations of fraud and misrepresentation.

Together, Corinthian and ITT Tech had more than half a million former students. Thousands of them filed so-called "borrower defense" claims, petitioning the Department of Education to forgive their student loans because they were defrauded by the institutions they attended. About 65,000 borrower-defense claims are now pending.

What to do? The Obama Administration prepared borrower-defense regulations that were scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2017; but Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos blocked their implementation, saying the rules would be rewritten through the "negotiated rule making" process. DeVos' decision will allow the for-profit industry a voice in reshaping the rules to their liking.

Why did DeVos block the Obama-era regulations? She said the regulations drafted by the Obama administration would allow students to get "free money" by having their loans forgiven.  In other words, DeVos apparently assumes students who file fraud victims are themselves engaging in fraud by seeking debt relief.

This latest caper from DeVos' Department of Education tells us all we need to know about President Trump's least qualified cabinet appointee . Time and time again, DeVos has made decisions to benefit the for-profit colleges at the expense of students; and she has hired consultants who have worked in that sleazy industry.

Millions of people have borrowed money to attend overly expensive for-profit colleges only to receive educational experiences that are virtually worthless. Some were defrauded, some obtained degrees that did not lead to good jobs, and some just paid too much for substandard postsecondary programs. Unless these people obtain relief from their student-loan debt, they will never get on their feet financially.

The Obama administration's borrower-defense regulations were drafted to determine which for-profit students are fraud victims entitled to student-loan debt relief. In my mind, however, it is impossible to efficiently decide on a case-by-case basis which student borrowers are entitled to debt relief due to fraud. That would require hundreds of thousands of individual due-process hearings.

No, the only way to give worthy student-loan debtors a fresh start is through bankruptcy. Congress must amend the Bankruptcy Code to treat student loans like any other consumer debt.

If insolvent student-loan debtors were given reasonable access to bankruptcy, millions of cases would be filed and at least half a trillion dollars in debt would be wiped out.

A half trillion dollars in student-loan debt relief would be a big hit to the U.S. treasury, but let's face it. Millions of student loans will never be paid back. It would be far better for the overall national economy if student borrowers were given a fresh start rather than be forced into 20- and 25-year repayment plans in which borrowers make token monthly payments that don't even cover accruing interest.

DeVos either doesn't understand the magnitude of the student-loan debt crisis or she doesn't  care. Either way, she is a disaster who needs to be cashiered.

Betsy DeVos: Having a good laugh at college students' expense

References

James Briggs. Former ITT Tech students got promise of help, then silence. USA Today, May 22, 2017.

Corinthian Colleges Students Eligible For Loan Discharge. National Bankruptcy Forum, June 22, 2017.

Andrew Kreighbaum. Devos: Borrower-Defense Rule Offered 'Free Money'. Inside Higher ED, September 26, 2017.

Chad Miller.  Understanding 'Borrower Defense to Repayment": A New Yellow Brick Road to Federal Student Loan Forgiveness. American Action Forum, November 1, 2016.

Michael Stratford. More Debt Relief for Corinthian Students. Inside Higher Ed, March 28, 2016.

The Department of Education's Official 3-Year Student-Loan Default Rate is Baloney

During the First World War, it is said, the British military kept three sets of casualty figures: one set to deceive the public, a second set to deceive the War Ministry, and a third set to deceive itself.

Over the years, the Department of Education has released its annual 3-year student-loan default rate in the autumn, about the time the pumpkins ripen. And every year the default rate that DOE issues is nothing but bullshit. I can't think of another word that adequately conveys DOE's mendacity and fraud.

This year, DOE reported that 11.5 percent of the the 2014 cohort of debtors defaulted on their loans within three years and that only ten institutions had default rates so high that they can be kicked out of the federal student-loan program. That's right: among the thousands of schools and colleges that suck up student-aid money, only ten fell below DOE's minimum student-loan default standard.

Why do I say DOE's three-year default rate is fraudulent?

Economic hardship deferments disguise the fact that millions of people aren't making loan payments. First of all, DOE has given millions of student-loan borrowers economic-hardship deferments or forbearances that allow borrowers to skip their monthly loan payments.  These deferments can last for several years. 

But people who are given permission to skip payments get no relief from accruing interest. Almost all these people will see their loan balances grow during the time they aren't making payments. By the time their deferment status ends, their loan balances will be too large to ever pay back.

The colleges actively encourage their former students to apply for loan deferments in order to keep their institutional default rates down. And that strategy has worked brilliantly for them. Virtually all of the colleges and schools are in good standing with DOE in spite of the fact that more than half the former students at a thousand institutions have paid nothing down on their loans seven years after beginning repayment.

Second,  DOE's three-year default rate does not include people who default after three years.  Only around 11 percent of student borrowers default within three years, but 28 percent from a recent cohort defaulted within five years. In the for-profit sector, the five-year default rate for a recent cohort of borrowers was 47 percent--damn near half.

DOE's income-driven repayment plans are a shell game.  As DOE candidly admits, the Department has been able to keep its three-year default rates low partly through encouraging floundering student borrowers to sign up for income-driven repayment plans  (IDRs) that lower monthly loan payments but stretch out the repayment period to as long as a quarter of a century.

President Obama expanded the IDR options by introducing PAYE and REPAYE, repayment plans which allow borrowers to make payments equal to 10 percent of their discretionary income (income  above the poverty level) for 20 years.

But most people who sign up for IDRs are making monthly payments so low that their loan balances are growing year by year even if they faithfully make their monthly loan payments. By the time their repayment obligations cease, their loan balances may be double, triple, or even quadruple the amount the originally borrowed.

Alan and Catherine Murray, who obtained a partial discharge of their student-loan debt in bankruptcy in 2016, are a case in point. The Murrays borrowed $77,000 to obtain postsecondary education and paid back about 70 percent of that amount. But they ran into financial difficulties that forced them to obtain an economic hardship deferment on their loans.  And at some point they entered into an IDR.

Twenty years after finishing their studies, the Murrays' student-loan balance had quadrupled to $311,000!  Yet a bankruptcy court ruled that the Murrays had handled their student loans in good faith, and they had never defaulted.

DOE is engaged in accounting fraud. If the Department of Education were a private bank, its executives would go to jail for accounting fraud. (Or maybe not. Wells Fargo and Bank of America's CEOs aren't in prison yet.)  The best that can be said about DOE's annual announcement on three-year default rates is that the number DOE releases is absolutely meaningless.

This is what is really going on. More than half of the people in a recent cohort of borrowers have not paid down one penny of their student-loan debt five years into the repayment phase of their loans.  And the loan balances for these people are not stable. People who are not paying down the interest on their student loans are seeing their loan balances grow.

In short, DOE is operating a fraudulent student-loan program.  More than 44 million Americans are encumbered by student-loan  debt that totals $1.4 trillion.  At least half that amount--well over half a trillion dollars--will never be paid back.

Betsy DeVos' job is to keep the shell game going a little longer, which she is well qualified to do. After all, she is a beneficiary of Amway,  "a multi-level marketing company," which some critics have described as a pyramid scheme.

Betsy DeVos: The perfect person to oversee DOE's student-loan shell game

References

Paul Fain. Federal Loan Default Rates Rise. Insider Higher ED, September 28, 2017.

Paul Fain. Feds' data error inflated loan repayment rates on the College Scoreboard. Inside Higher Ed, January 16, 2017.

Andrea Fuller. Student Debt Payback Far Worse Than Believed. Wall Street Journal, January 18, 2017.

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).

Murray v. Educational Credit Management Corporation, Case No. 14-22253, ADV. No. 15-6099, 2016 Banrk. LEXIS 4229 (Bankr. D. Kansas, December 8, 2016), aff'd, Case No. 16-2838 (D. Kan. September 22, 2017).

Joe Nocera. The Pyramid Scheme Problem, New York Times, September 15, 2015.

Betsy Devos deserves a Congressional censure: It's nothing personal, Betsy; but you are a disaster

Betsy DeVos, President Trump's Secretary of Education, is a disaster. Month after month, she makes decisions to aid the for-profit college industry at the expense of students who have been swindled by the institutions they attended.

As David Halperin said in a recent essay, DeVos' embrace of predatory for-profit colleges is "breathtaking."  Halperin's indictment of DeVos' performance is comprehensive, and you should read it. Here are a few of the highlights of DeVos' reckless malfeasance:

She rolled back an Obama-era regulation that prohibits the for-profits from inserting mandatory arbitration clauses in their student enrollment agreements.  These clauses prevent defrauded students from suing the colleges that defrauded them and usually prohibit students from banding together to file class action lawsuits.

She set aside a procedure for processing so-called "borrower defense" claims, whereby students can get their student loans discharged on the grounds that they were defrauded by the college they attended.

Under her leadership, the Department has failed to failed (as of July 2017) to process even one of the 65,000 fraud claims that students have filed, including claims filed by students who attended Corinthian Colleges and ITT Tech--two for-profits that filed bankruptcy under a dense cloud of fraud allegations.

DeVos' Department of Education canceled an information-sharing agreement with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an act so irrational that Steve Rhode was prompted to ask whether she was "nucking futs."

DeVos cannot be impeached, because the Constitution only allows impeachment of a cabinet official for "high crimes and misdemeanors;" and I don't think DeVos has done anything criminal. But she certainly deserves to be censured by Congress for conduct that is blatantly contrary to the public interest.

 Wouldn't it be grand if the U.S. Senate formally censured her in a bi-partisan expression of righteous indignation? In my mind's eye, I see Mitch McConnell, Senate Majority Leader, hand-delivering a formal Senate censure resolution.

Perhaps Mitch would borrow a line from The Godfather as he tenders DeVos a blistering condemnation of her public stewardship. "It's not personal, Betsy," McConnell would intone, 'but you're a disater."

It's not personal, Betsy.

References

Collin Binkley. Student-loan forgiveness has halted under Trump, records show. Chicago Tribune, July 27, 2017.

David Halperin. DeVos Embrace of Predatory For-Profit Colleges is Breathtaking. Huffington Post, September 10, 2017.

Andrew Kreighbaum. Few solutions for defrauded borrowers. Inside Higher Ed, June 26, 2017.

Steve Rhode. Is Betsy DeVos Nuckin Futs With Break From Student Loan Debtor Protections? The Debt Out of Debt Guy, September 

Terrific essay by Steve Rhode: Is Betsy DeVos Nuckin Futs With Break From Student Loan Debtor Protections?

This terrific essay by Steve Rhode first appeared on Consumer Debt Guy blog site on September 6, 2017.

***

By Steve Rhode on September 6, 2017

   

The Consumerist is reporting the Department of Education has terminated its cooperation with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in dealing with student loan servicer problems.

“DeVos accuses the Bureau of not living up to its end of agreements established in 2011 and 2013, by doing too much to hold loan servicers accountable.”

“DeVos suggests that actions taken by the CFPB to rein in shoddy student loan servicers and collectors only confuses borrowers.

“The Department takes exception to the CFPB unilaterally expanding its oversight role to include the Department’s contracted federal student loan servicers,” DeVos wrote. “The Department has full oversight responsibility for federal student loans.”

However, the Department’s ability to root out fraud was thrown into question last week, when the agency appointed former for-profit college executive Julian Schmoke to run the Department’s enforcement division.

While Schmoke currently works as a high-ranking director at a community college in Georgia, he spent several years working for DeVry University, a college that has been repeatedly accused of fraud by both federal and state authorities.”

“The claim that the CFPB ‘unilaterally’ expanded its oversight role over servicers and collectors of federal student loans is unfounded,” Persus Yu, director of the National Consumer Law Center’s Student Loan Borrower Project, said in a statement.

“Education is now trying to stop the CFPB from handling loan-related complaints, but Education’s failures are what led Congress to give the CFPB authority to help students,” Yu said. “DeVos is prioritizing the interests of predatory for-profit schools, debt collectors, and troubled student loan services over the interests of student loan borrowers.”

This recent action and the fact the Department of Education has not approved Borrower Defense claims leads me to wonder where is any proof the Department of Education gives a damn about student loan debtors.

Charlotte School of Law closed, But Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos has been stingy in granting student-loan relief

Charlotte School of Law closed its doors on August 15, 2017. Thank God!

Before it shut down, CSL was one of the worst law schools in the United States by almost any measure. Based on metrics developed by Law School Transparency, a public interest law-school monitoring organization, 50 percent of CSL's 2014 entering class ran an "extreme" risk of failing the bar exam, and additional 25 percent ran a "very high" risk of failing the exam.

And it fact, less than half of CSL's 2015 graduating class passed the bar. Moreover, less than 25 percent of its 2016 graduates obtained full-time law jobs; and the law school's underemployment rate for that class was 58.8 percent.

Do you want other measures of mediocrity? Not a single CSL graduate in the 2016 graduating class obtained a federal clerkship, which is the most prestigious job a newly graduated attorney can get. The best paying jobs are in large corporate firms; and only 1.5 percent of 2016 graduates landed jobs in large law firms.

And in spite of its monumental mediocrity, Charlotte School of Law--before it shut down--was incredibly expensive. Tuition for the 2017 entering class (had there been one) is $44,284 per year. Law School Transparency estimated the total cost of obtaining a law degree from CSL to be a quarter million dollars!

The ABA put CSL on probation in 2016, and the Obama administration shut off student-loan money in December of last year. Still, the law school lumbered along until its state operating license expired and North Carolina regulators refused to extend it.

Most CSL students took out federal loans to finance their studies and few will be able to pay back their loans. Nevertheless, Betsy DeVos's Department of Education has been stingy in granting loan forgiveness. Only students enrolled on April 12, 2017 or later are eligible to have their student loans forgiven under the closed-school rule.

The Department also has a "borrower defense" process, whereby students can seek student-loan forgiveness if they can show they were defrauded by the institution they attended. More than 500 former CSL students have filed those claims, but DeVos put the borrower-defense regulations on hold. As of July 2016, DeVos's DOE had not approve any borrower-defense claims.

What a mess!

In my mind, there is only one fair remedy for all the people who took out student loans to attend CSL and failed to get jobs that paid well enough to pay back their loans.  Secretary DeVos should forgive student-loan debt for everyone who took out student loans to attend Charlotte School of Law.

But that would not be fair, DeVos might respond. After all, at least a few people graduated from CSL and got good law jobs.  Yes, but not many.  The administrative cost of sorting out who benefited and who failed to benefit doesn't justify the effort.

Everyone who attended this crummy law school should get 100 percent debt relief.  Unfortunately, that's not going to happen.  And there are several more bottom-tier law schools that are still operating and still raking in federal student-loan money.

Photo credit: abovethelaw.com

References

Andrew Kreighbaum, As Charlotte Law makes closure official, Education Department sets loan discharge rules. Inside Higher ED, August 25, 2017.

Andrew Kreighbaum, The Slow Death of a For-Profit Law School. Inside Higher Ed, August 16, 2017.

Department of Education Punts on Borrower Defense to Repayment Rules. Essay by Steve Rhode

I’m still waiting to be pleasantly surprised by the Trump Department of Education (ED) under Secretary DeVos. It has not happened yet.

From the recent actions to remove critical information from consumer notices to wanting to get a single loan servicer to handle all federal loans, the current incarnation of ED seems to be moving in a direction that provides less support and help for debtors.

On October 2016, the then ED announced new regulations to go into force on July 1, 2017. “The U.S. Department of Education today announced final regulations to protect student borrowers against misleading and predatory practices by postsecondary institutions and clarify a process for loan forgiveness in cases of institutional misconduct. These final regulations further cement the Obama Administration’s strong record and steadfast commitment to protecting student loan borrowers, deterring harmful practices by institutions, safeguarding taxpayer dollars and holding institutions accountable for their actions.” – Source

The Betsy DeVos ED is delaying the implementation of the Borrower Defense to Repayment rules. The ED announced today “Postsecondary institutions of all types have raised concerns about the BDR regulations since they were published on Nov. 1, 2016. Colleges and universities are especially concerned about the excessively broad definitions of substantial misrepresentation and breach of contract, the lack of meaningful due process protections for institutions and “financial triggers” under the new rules.” – Source

So the current ED is going to start over again and says, “The Department plans to publish its Notice of Intent to Conduct Negotiated Rulemaking on BDR and GE in the Federal Register on June 16, 2017. The Department will conduct public hearings on BDR and GE on July 10, 2017, in Washington, D.C. and July 12, 2017, in Dallas, Texas.” Goodness knows how long this new process if going to take and what opportunities student loan debtors will have to actually have their loans discharged due to misrepresentation by colleges and schools who received federal student loans.

For example, the ED previously said, “Many of these claims are from borrowers who attended programs that the Department found had been publicized with misleading job placement rates.” – Source

What do you think, should schools who misrepresented the success of their programs or actual employment rates to induce students to enroll, get a free pass and eliminated from the new rules? Let me know what you think by posting your comment below.

Even under the old administration the Borrower Defense to Repayment processing was less than optimal. There are students that have been waiting years for a conclusion to their claims and the next changes will only serve to slow down the entire process of assisting harmed student loan debtors.

As an example, ED previously said they had ” received a total of approximately 82,000 claims.” And while a previous report on the status of the program said 16,000 had been processed and approved, the current ED press release says, “Nearly 16,000 borrower defense claims are currently being processed by the Department, and, as I have said all along, promises made to students under the current rule will be promises kept,” said Secretary DeVos. So where are the rest of the claims?

Steve Rhode

Get Out of Debt Guy – Twitter, G+, Facebook

This article by Steve Rhode first appeared on Get Out of Debt Guy and was distributed by the Personal Finance Syndication Network.