Arbitration and For-Profit Colleges: Public Citizen, a consumer group, asks the Department of Education to bar for-profits from forcing students to arbitrate their fraud claims. What a good idea!

Public Citizen, a consumer rights group, formally petitioned the U.S. Department of Education to cut off federal student-aid money to for-profit colleges that force their students to sign arbitration agreements that bar students from suing the colleges for fraud or misrepresentation or from filing class-action lawsuits. Julie Murray, spokesperson for the group, explained Public Citizen's position. "Taxpayers should not have to subsidize predatory schools that deny their students a day in court," Murray said in a press release.

What a good idea! Everyone knows that thousands of low-income and minority students have been lured into enrolling at expensive for-profit colleges by misrepresentations and high-pressure recruiting tactics.  The for-profits have very high student-loan default rates, high dropout rates, and high percentages of students who are seeing their loan debt growing larger because they are forced into economic-hardship deferment programs due to the fact that their post-studies income is not high enough to pay off their student loans.

In fact, as Stephen Burd pointed out in an Inside Higher Ed essay, a for-profit institution's shareholders can sue a for-profit college for misrepresenting job-placement figures while the students themselves cannot.

Arbitration clauses always favor the for-profit industry because the for-profits pick the arbitration company, which gives the arbitrators an incentive to rule in favor of the colleges or at least to go easy on them in order to get "repeat business."  Discovery is often limited in arbitration proceedings, and arbitration can be expensive, since the student must bear part of the arbitrator's cost.

I agree with Mr. Burd, who wrote:

Congress should eliminate this injustice by barring colleges that participate in the federal student aid program from including binding arbitration clauses in enrollment agreements, just as Senators Tom Harkin of Iowa and Al Franken of Minnesota proposed . . . . As [the senators] wrote, "Colleges and universities should not be able to insulate themselves from liability by forcing students to preemptively give up their right to be protected by our nation's laws.

Student-loan debtors--and there are 42 million of you--should ask presidential candidates if they are willing to cut off federal student-aid funding to for-profit colleges that force their students to sign arbitration agreements.   What would Hillary's answer be? Donald Trump's? Bernie Sanders?

References

Stephen Burd. Signing Away Rights. Inside Higher Ed, December 17, 2013. Available at https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2013/12/17/essay-questions-mandatory-arbitration-clauses-students-profit-higher-education

Ashley A. Smith. U.S. Urged to Deny Aid to For-Profits That Force Arbitration. Inside Higher Ed, February 24, 2016. Available at: https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2016/02/24/us-urged-deny-aid-profits-force-arbitration?utm_source=Inside+Higher+Ed&utm_campaign=183bc9e3a3-DNU20160224&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1fcbc04421-183bc9e3a3-198565653

The percentage of low-income students going to college went down while Pell Grant spending went up: What's going on?

According to the American Council on Education, the percentage of low-income students enrolling in college has gone down. What's going on?

ACE reports that the percentage of recently-graduated low-income students who enrolled in college dropped from 55.9% in 2008 to 45.5% in 2013.  College enrollments also dropped for other income groups, but not by nearly as much.

Can the drop be attributed to insufficient federal student aid? Probably not. The Department of Education reported that federal student aid increased by 29% from 2009 to 2012--rising from $129 billion in FY 2009 to $166.9 billion in FY 2012.

And Pell Grant funding (grants to low-income college students) actually tripled from 2007 to 2011, going from $13.6 billion in FY 2007 to  $41.6 billion.

Perceived cost of higher education. ACE speculated that the perceived cost of higher education may have discourage low-income students from going to college, and this makes sense. Low-income young people may not be aware that many private colleges actually discount their tuition by more than 40 percent for incoming freshmen. In other words, potential students from poor families may not know that the sticker price is only the sucker price and that most first-year students get the benefit of deep discounts.

Going to work rather than going to college. ACE suggested another explanation for the percentage drop in low-income college students: many low-income students are simply skipping the college experience and going to work. This explanation also makes senses.

In my own family, I have a nephew who dropped out of college and got a job as a pipe fitter working in the shipbuilding industry. He's making good money and he found a girl friend who is also making good money as a pipe fitter. In fact, my nephew is making more money in his present job than he would make if he got a college degree and got a job as a school teacher. Is he likely to go back to college? I don't think so.

Low-income families have gotten wise to the for-profit college industry. I think there is a third possible explanation for the drop in low-income students going to college: low-income families may have gotten wise to the for-profit college industry.

All over the country, state attorney generals are investigating the for-profit colleges based on allegations that these colleges have engaged in misrepresentations and fraud.  Some for-profits have been fined. Corinthian Colleges filed for bankruptcy and several for-profits have closed.

It could be that low-income and minority students--who have been the target of the for-profit colleges--have figured out that many of these joints charge too much and don't deliver on their promises.

Conclusion

Low-income individuals are going to college in smaller numbers, and this may not be bad. If they can get good jobs without going to college then they can avoid the huge opportunity costs of being a college student--forgone wages and student loans.

And if young people from low-income families are becoming more appreciative of the risk of borrowing money to attend a for-profit college, that is certainly good news. Although the Obama administration hasn't been as aggressive as I think it should be toward the for-profit college industry, it has taken some steps to rein in abuses.  And state officials have taken action against abusive for-profits colleges as well. This is good news.

References

American Council on Education. ACE Fact Sheet on Higher Education. Pell Grant Funding History (1976 to 2010). Accessible at: http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Documents/FactSheet-Pell-Grant-Funding-History-1976-2010.pdf

Misty Baily. Attorney Generals Expand Probe into For Profit Colleges. Education News, January 14, 2014. Accessible at:  /www.educationnews.org/higher-education/attorney-generals-expand-probe-into-for-profit-colleges/#sthash.pKZVeW5V.dpuf

Kelly Field. Attorneys General Take Aim at For-Profit Colleges Institutional Loan Programs, Chronicle of Higher Education, March 20, 2012. Accessible at: http://chronicle.com/article/Attorneys-General-Take-Aim-at/131254/

Scott Jaschik. The Missing Low Income Students: Study finds drop in percentage of low-income students enrolling in college. Inside Higher Education, November 25, 2015. Accessible at: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/11/25/study-finds-drop-percentage-low-income-students-enrolling-college

U.S. Department of Education. Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Summary--February 14, 2011.  Accessible at: https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget12/summary/edlite-section2d.html

U.S. Department of Education. Pell Grant Funding Status. Accessible at:
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/fpg/funding.html

What was your first clue, Sherlock? A Chronicle of Higher Education writer explains that some colleges are gaming their student-loan default rates

Colleges must keep their student-loan default rates down or they will lose their right to participate in the federal student loan program. If a college's three-year default rate (as measured by the Department of Education) reaches 30 percent for three consecutive years, that college can be kicked out of the federal student loan program. And most colleges cannot survive without federal student-aid money.

Ben Miller, writing for Chronicle of Higher Education, explains how colleges can artificially keep their student-loan default rates down, hiding the fact that a lot of their students are not paying back their loans.  As Miller points out, DOE's student-loan default measure only calculates the percentage of defaulters who default within three years of beginning repayment--which is a very short window of time.

[B]ecause the measure tracks results for such a short time, it is possible for colleges to game the metric by artificially lowering the number of students who default within three years. How? A college can encourage borrowers to ask for a forbearance--an option in which the federal government allows borrowers to stop making payments without their loans becoming delinquent or heading toward default. Since it takes almost a year to default, the college needs borrowers to enter forbearance for a couple of years, ensuring they cannot show up in the default rate, even if they never make a single payment.

In fact, as Senator Harkin's Senate Committee documented in its report on the for-profit college industry, many for-profits aggressively encourage students to apply for economic hardship deferments, which are ridiculously easy to obtain.

That is probably why the three-year student-loan default rate for for-profits actually went down a bit according to DOE's 2014 student-loan default rate report. The for-profits are adept at getting their former students to sign up for economic hardship deferments that obscure the fact that these students are not making their loan payments.

Miller argued persuasively that a better measurement of student-loan defaults would be compare the number of students going into repayment at a college compared to the number of graduates.  Students who are going into repayment without graduating have lower rates of success than graduates in terms of getting good jobs, and they also have higher student-loan default rates.  Therefore, a college that has a high level of students beginning repayment compared to the number of graduates is probably a college that has a high student-loan default rate.

So what did Miller find?  Among public 4-year institutions, 84 students went into repayment for every 100 graduates.  But in the 4-year for-profit sector, 233 students went into repayment for every 100 graduates.  In other words, more than twice as many students attending 4-year for-profit institutions began repayment (in the most recent cohort of borrowers) than obtained degrees.

That is a very bad sign, and a strong indicator that the for-profits have much higher student-loan default rates than DOE's anemic metric shows.  It seems reasonable to conclude that the true student-loan default rate in the for-profit sector is at least twice as high as DOE reports; it is probably at least 40 percent!

The Obama administration surely knows that the number of students who default on their loans is much higher than DOE reports every year and that the true default rate for students who attended for-profit institutions is alarmingly high.

But so far at least, the for-profits have evaded effectively regulation; and they have hidden their true default rates by encouraging their former students to sign up for economic hardship deferments. Meanwhile they suck up about one quarter of all the federal student-aid money while only enrolling about 11 percen of all the post-secondary students.

Some day this house of cards will collapse, and the public will realize that the for-profit colleges have unacceptably high student-loan default rates. And we will have to face the fact that millions of people --mostly low-income and minority students--have defaulted on their loans and have had their lives wrecked by the fact that they attended for-profit institutions.

References

Ben Miller. Student-Loan Default Rates Are Easily Gamed. Here's a Better Measure. Chronicle of Higher Education, March 26, 2015.

Senator Tom Harkin is Like a Shade-Tree Mechanic--He Can Tell You What's Wrong With the Student Loan Program, But He Can't Fix It: Veterans, The New GI Bill and the For-Profit Colleges

Photo credit: autoguide.com

Senator Tom Harkin reminds me of the shade-tree mechanics I patronized when I was young and poor and drove old cars,  I would drive my junker up to some Mom-and-Pop mechanic shop, the mechanic would accurately diagnose what was wrong with my car, and then he would say he couldn't fix it.

Senator Harkin did the public a major service when he chaired the committee that reported on the for-profit colleges a couple of years. In a massive report--over a thousand pages when the appendices are included, the Harkin committee spelled out the many abuses in the for-profit college industry.

Since that report was issued, almost nothing has been done to rein in the rapacious for-profit colleges, which suck up about a quarter of all federal student aid money and only enroll about 11 percent of the students.

Last July, Senator Harkinn's Senate Committee has issued a second important report. This one focuses on the way the for--profits have made out like bandits with programs targeted at veterans who have gone to college under the Post-9/11 GI Bill.

Here is a summary of the Harkin Report's findings:

• Eight of the 10 top recipients of Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits are large, publicly traded companies that operate for-profit colleges. These eight companies received 23 percent of all the Post-9/11 GI bill money for 2012-2013.

• Seven of those 8 companies are currently under investigation by state attorney generals offices or the federal government for deceptive or misleading recruiting or possible violations of federal law. 

• The number of veterans attending public colleges has declined between 2009 and 2013 while the number of veterans who attend for-profit colleges has increased.

• Although overall enrollment at the eight top for-profit beneficiaries of the Post-9/11 GI Bill has declined in recent years , the number of veterans who enrolled at these schools has increased.

Why are veterans so attractive to the for-profit colleges? As the Harkin Report explains, the Higher Education Act requires that the for-profits operate under the 90/10 rule. In other words, they can only receive 90 percent of their revenue from federal student aid money.  However, money received under the Post-9/11 GI Bill is not counted as part of the 90 percent.

Thus, for-profits who are getting 90 percent or close to 90 percent of their revenue from the general federal student-aid program can get that last ten percent of their by enrolling veterans under the Post-9/11 GI Bill.

This would be fine, I suppose, if the for-profits were doing a bang-up job of educating veterans and preparing them for good post-military jobs. But apparently, they are not. 

The Harkin Report found that "[a]t the for-profit colleges currently receiving the most benefits, up to 66 percent of students withdrew without a degree or diploma" (p. ii).  The Report also found:

Between 39 and 57 percent of the programs offered by four of the companies receiving he most Post-9/11 GI bill benefits would fail to meet the proposed gainful employment rule, suggesting that the students who attend these institutions do not earn enough to pay back the debt they take on.  (p. ii)

As the Harkin Report put it, some for-profit colleges "appear to be taking advantage of a loophole to use Post-9/11 GI Bill funds to comply with the federal requirement that no more than 90 percent of revenue come from federal student aid" (p. ii).

And of course, this cozy arrangement for the for-profits is costing taxpayers, "who are paying twice as much on average to send a veteran to a for-profit college for a year compared to the cost at a public college or university ($7,972 versus $3,914)" (p. ii).

The Harkin Committee Report makes interesting reading, but the Committee made no significant recommendations.  It is the latest in a series of reports showing that students are being ill-served by and large by the for-profit college industry.  These schools charge far more for their programs than comparable programs offered by public universities and community colleges. They have very high student-loan default rates and high student dropout rates, and very often they are enrolling students through deceptive recruiting practices and are putting students into programs that are not likely to lead to well-paying jobs.

Why don't we do something about this?  Because the for-profits have very good lobbyists and lawyers sand they make strategic campaign contributions to key federal legislators.

Thus, in the end, the latest report by Senator Harkin's Committee is very much like my fruitless conversations with the shade-tree mechanics of my youth.  "Buddy, your car is in dire need of repair, but we can't fix it."

References

Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee (Senator Tom Harkin, Chairman). Is the New GI Bill Working?: For-Profit Colleges Increasing Veteran Enrollment and Federal Funds, July 30, 2014.   Washington, DC: United States Senate. Accessible at http://www.harkin.senate.gov/documents/pdf/53d8f7f69102e.pdf

Like the Crocodile, American Higher Education is Eating Its Young: Reflections While In Africa

I just returned from Uganda, where I visited several Ugandan universities and toured a game preserve on the upper Nile River. As I viewed the wildlife of Africa--the elephants, the baboons, the giraffes--I was deeply impressed by how fiercely most African species protect their young.

Cape buffalo: Don't mess with my family

I was particularly struck by the cape buffaloes, which are quite effective in protecting their calves from predators. When they sense trouble, the adults instinctively form a circle around their young ones; and acting together, they can even fend off lions.According to my guide, lions do not even try to attack a herd of cape buffalo unless they are in a large group because they know the buffaloes will rough them up.

At least one African species, however, does not protect its young--the crocodile. A guide told me crocodiles will protect their eggs, but after baby crocs are hatched, their mothers show no interest in them. In fact, crocodiles are cannibals; the bigger crocodiles will sometimes eat the small ones.

As I received this information, I could not help but draw a comparison between the crocodiles and American higher education. At one time, we Americans believed our colleges would nurture the young, transmit and preserve our cultural heritage, and prepare our young people for adult life and the world of work. In other words, Americans once considered their colleges to be something like cape buffaloes, which would do all they could to make sure their young grew up to be healthy adults.

I'm not sure Americans believe that anymore. In fact, American higher education today looks much more like a crocodile than a cape buffalo. Every year, the cost of higher education goes up a bit more, requiring students to borrow more and more money in order to attend college. Our college presidents and administrators have become overpaid, arrogant bureaucrats more intent on wooing wealthy donors and constructing impressive buildings than on serving their students.

Crocodile: Come a little closer and I promise you'll have a good educational experience

In particular, the for-profit college industry has exploited low-income and minority students by using high-pressure recruiting tactics to enroll them in expensive programs that frequently do not lead to well-paying jobs. Students who attend for-profit institutions have the highest default rates on student loans, loans which they cannot discharge in bankruptcy.

In short, with each passing year, American higher education--and the for-profit college industry in particular--becomes more and more like the crocodiles, which eat their young, than the cape buffaloes, which nurture and protect them.

And everyone knows this. Indeed, not long ago, President Obama said the for-profit colleges were "making out like a bandit," and his administration has admirably tried to bring them under tighter regulatory control.

But you can't regulate crocodiles; you have to stay away from them. As long as we permit the for-profit college industry to feast off of federal student-aid money, we will have corruption and exploitation. The sooner we face this cold fact, the sooner we will realize that this industry must be shut down.

Of course, as I have just said, the public universities and the non-profit colleges have serious problems as well; but compared to the for-profit colleges, the publics and non-profits are more like alligators than crocodiles. And according to the Ugandans, in comparison to a crocodile, an alligator is merely a Presbyterian.

Not With a Bang But With a Whimper: For-Profit Corinthian Colleges May Close Some Campuses

Yesterday's New York Times carried a story in its Business Section about Corinthian Colleges, a for-profit company that operates under the names of Heald, Everest and WyoTech.  Corinthian has 72,000 students on more than 100 campuses.

Recently, Corinthian announced that it did have enough operating cash to stay in business after the end of this month, and it persuaded the federal government to release some federal student aid money in spite of the fact that it admitted fraud in the reporting of student grades and job placements.  Corinthian has also been sued by the California Attorney General based on allegations that it used high-pressure tactics to recruit vulnerable students--including single mothers.

Like most for-profit colleges, Corinthian relies on the federal student aid program to stay in business. It gets about 90 percent of its revenue from the federal government--about $1.4 billion a year.  DOE's emergency cash infusion (about $16 million, according to the New York Times) may be enough to stave off closing for awhile at least. But that might not be a good thing for students.

As the Times article stated:

If, as critics contend, many Corinthian students are going deeper into debt to gain useless educations, some of those students might have been better off is the Education Department had stuck to its guns and forced Corinthian to close. Federal student loan rules do not require students to repay loans that were canceled while they were enrolled, leaving them unable to graduate.

In most instances, we should not be happy to see a college close, but the for-profit industry is a special case. As Senator Tom Harkin's Committee outlined in its report on for-profit colleges, this sector of higher education only educates about 11 percent of postsecondary students but collects about 25 percent of federal student aid money.  The for-profits have the highest student-loan default rate in the higher education industry; according to DOE, one in five for-profit college students default within three years of beginning repayment. 

And there is ample evidence that for-profit colleges have exploited low-income individuals, encouraging them to take out loans to pay for programs that don't lead to well-paying jobs.  Even if they believe they have been defrauded, these students often have no recourse to the courts, because many of the for-profits require students to sign agreements to arbitrate disputes rather than sue.

Indeed, the Ninth Circuit ruled last year that Corinthian students were compelled to arbitrate their misrepresentation claims against Corinthian--claims that were brought under California's unfair competition law, false advertising law, and California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act. 

To its credit, the Obama administration has been trying to impose regulations on the for-profits, but it suffered a setback in the courts when the for-profits were successful in getting some of the Department of Education's regulations thrown out.  Recently, DOE issued a second set of proposed regulations, but these new regulations will probably just lead to more litigation.

So we should not be sorry to see Corinthian Colleges close--if that event comes to pass. In fact, we should hope this whole unseemly industry collapses.  So far,  the federal government has not been successful in effectively regulating the for-profit college industry.  But perhaps students will gradually wake up to the fact that they would probably be better off enrolling in low-cost community colleges, where they might not need to take out student loans, than to matriculate at high-cost for-profit institutions that have a very poor track record regarding job placement, degree completion, and student-loan defaults.


References

Ferguson v. Corinthian Colleges, 733 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. 2013).

Floyd Norris. A For-Profit College Falters as Federal Cash Wanes. New York Times, June 27, 2014.

U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. For Profit Higher Education: The Failure to Safeguard the Federal Investment and Ensure Student Success. 112 Congress, 2d Session, July 30, 2012.

Yet another injustice: For-profit colleges force ripped-off students to arbitrate their claims rather than seek relief in the courts

The federal student loan program is a metaphorical train wreck--the wreck of a passenger train crowded with hapless commuters. The injured are strewn all over the landscape waiting to be treated.

The federal student loan program is a metaphorical train wreck.

If President Obama were a compassionate man, he would introduce legislation to assist the people who have been hurt by their participation in the federal student loan program. But he's not doing that. To extend the train-wreck metaphor further, Obama wants to close his eyes to the carnage on the railroad tracks and focus all his attention on designing a safer railroad car.

The President has done nothing to ease the plight of millions of young people who are burdened by student-loan debt and can't find decent jobs. Instead, he is pushing a college rating system that supposedly will help students make better choices about where to attend college. And he also wants more students to sign up for long-term student-loan repayment plans.

 

Of course, everyone knows that the most egregious student-loan abuses involve the for-profit colleges, which have been accused of high-pressure recruiting tactics and misrepresentations about students' job prospects. From time to time former students have sued for-profit colleges under state consumer protection laws, seeking damages based on claims that they'd been ripped off.

 

But the for-profits have figured out a clever way to stop lawsuits against them. Many of them force students to sign arbitration agreements when they enroll. Under these agreements, students waive their right to sue the college, even if they later believe they were induced to enroll based on misrepresentations. Instead, students are forced to submit their claims to arbitration, which most often benefits the college, not the student. More on this later.

Ferguson v. Corinthian Colleges: Students at for-profit colleges are denied right to a jury trial

Here's a recent example. In Ferguson v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., decided last August by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Kevin Ferguson and Sandra Muniz, former students at schools operated by Corinthian Colleges, Inc., sought to bring a class action law suit against Corinthian based on alleged misrepresentations. These were their claims, as outlined by the court:

The thrust of [the former students'] complaint was that Corinthian systematically misled prospective students in order to entice enrollment. Corinth allegedly misrepresented the quality of its education, its accreditation, the career prospects for its graduates, and the actual cost of education at one of its schools. Students were also allegedly misinformed about financial aid, which resulted in student loans that many could not repay. Corinthian also allegedly targeted veterans and military personnel specifically, so that it could receive funding through federal financial aid programs available to those people.

Unfortunately for Ferguson and Muniz, both had signed arbitration agreements with Corinthian or one of its subsidiaries as part of the admission process. Under these agreements, they waived the right to sue Corinthian and agreed to arbitrate any claims under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).

When Ferguson and Muniz sued in federal court, Corinthian moved to dismiss their case on the grounds that they were compelled to arbitrate. A federal judge granted Corinthian's motion in part but allowed the former students to seek an injunction against Corinthian in federal court.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed, ruling that all claims against Corinthian must be arbitrated, including any request for injunctive relief. The Federal Arbitration Act "reflects an 'emphatic federal policy' in favor of arbitration," the court said. Under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, "the FAA preempts contrary state law" and prevents the states from allowing a party to go to court to resolve claims that the party had previously agreed to submit to arbitration.

Why is Ferguson v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc. a bad decision for students?

Why do the for-profits require students to sign arbitration agreements as a condition of enrolling? Forcing dissatisfied students to arbitrate their claims is advantageous to the corporate universities because students must pay a part of the arbitrator's cost, something many students can't afford to do. In addition, the for-profits prefer to go before an arbitrator rather than a jury, which might be quite sympathetic to a student's claim that he or she was induced to enroll in a for-profit college based on false promises and misrepresentations.

 

Moreover, arbitrators generally do not award punitive damages, their power to grant injunctive relief is limited if not non-existent, and an arbitrator's decision is usually private and not subject to public inspection. No wonder the for-profits require their students to sign agreements promising to arbitrate their complaints and not file lawsuits.

Congress should pass a law barring for-profit colleges from forcing students to sign arbitration agreements

Under the Federal Arbitration Act, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, states do not have the authority to allow ripped-off students to sue for-profit colleges under state consumer-protection laws if those students signed arbitration agreements, which many of them are forced to do as a condition of enrolling in a for-profit college. This is wrong.

 

President Obama should introduce legislation that prohibits for-profit colleges from forcing students to sign arbitration agreements and specifically permits students to sue for-profit colleges for fraud or misrepresentation under appropriate state consumer-protection laws. The legislation should give students the right to a jury trial, and prevailing students should receive attorney fees and punitive damages when appropriate.

 

Of course, President Obama will never introduce such legislation, and Congress would never pass it if he did. The for-profits are too politically powerful for such a law ever to be adopted.
 

Rather than tackle the abuses in the for-profit college industry, President Obama prefers to introduce a complicated and toothless rating system for colleges--a rating system that will do nothing to reduce the harm so many students suffer when they borrow money to attend a for-profit college or university.

References
 

Ferguson v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., 733 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. 2013).

President Obama Pushes Income-Based Repayment Plans for Student-Loan Debtors: Madness! Madness!

The U.S. Department of Education is sending e-mails to selected student-loan borrowers, urging them to consider signing up for income-based repayment plans (IBRs) to pay off their student loans. Currently, about 1.6 million student-loan borrowers participate in IBR plans, but DOE wants to sign up 3.6 million additional participants within the next six weeks.  If DOE is successful, more than 5 million people will soon be making student-loan payments based on a percentage of their income over a long period of time--20 to 25 years.

A lot of the major players in higher education like IBRs--"pay as you earn" plans as some people call them. In a co-authored essay in Chronicle of Higher Education, Sandy Baum of the College Board lauded the President's plan for notifying students about IBRs and said IBRs should be the "default option" for student-loan repayment. In other words, unless student borrowers affirmatively opt out, they would automatically be enrolled in a student-loan repayment plan that would stretch their payments out over 20 or 25 years.  Wow, what a super idea!

And how will income-based loan repayments be collected? The details aren't clear yet, but I imagine the feds will do what the Brookings Institution recommends.  Student-loan borrowers will have their loan payments deducted from their payroll checks. The IRS will become the national debt collector, and a student-loan borrower's monthly loan payments will go up or down based on the borrower's current income, like income-tax withholding payments. 

Thus, the day may be coming when former college students will see their monthly student-loan payment appear as just another deduction on their paychecks--like Social Security, mandatory retirement contributions, and federal and state taxes. And for most borrowers, those deductions will last about a quarter of a century.

President Obama probably thinks he is doing college-loan debtors a favor by encouraging them to sign up for long-term repayment plans. He reminds me of Colonel Nicholson in Bridge on the River Kwai. Colonel Nicholson (played by Alec Guinness) is so obsessed with building a bridge for the Japanese army that he loses sight of the fact that he is hurting his country's cause, not helping it.. Not until the end of the movie does the Colonel realize that he has betrayed his country and the soldiers he commands.  The last lines of the movie are: "Madness, Madness!"

Col. Nicholson in Bridge on the River Kwai
"Madness! Madness!"

Why are all the insiders lining up in favor of IBRs? Two reasons:

IBR plans will hide the student-loan default crisis. First and most importantly, IBRs are a cosmetic fix for the soaring student-loan default rate.  As I've explained before, the true student-loan default rate is probably twice as high as the anemic three-year default rate DOE reports every year. In the for-profit sector, the overall default rate is at least 40 percent.  Over the long run, such a default rate is economically and politically unsustainable.

For years now, the for-profits have hid their institutional default rates by encouraging their students to sign up for economic hardship deferments so they won't be counted as defaulters. Millions of people have these deferments, but this shell game can't last forever. Eventually, the government will have to admit that a lot of people on economic-hardship deferments (probably most of them) are really defaulters who will never pay back their loans.

Putting people in IBRs is unlikely to increase the number of people who pay off their loans, but it will obscure the true student-loan default rate for several years. How? If people are automatically enrolled in IBRs, their loan payments will be lowered perhaps as low as zero for people who are unemployed or are in low-paying jobs.  These people won't be paying off their loan balances because interest will continue to accrue.  But they won't be counted as defaulters.

IBRs will take the heat off colleges and universities to keep their costs down.  Second, IBRs benefit the colleges and universities. If students pay for their college experiences based on a percentage of their income instead of the amount they borrow, they will have little incentive to shop for a college based on price. And governmental agencies will have less incentive to try to keep college costs down. Colleges and universities can perpetuate the status quo indefinitely, raising their tuition rates every year without being pressured to keep their costs down.

The for-profits will be the big winners if IBR plans become the default option for student borrowers because their student-loan default rates will drop to zero in spite of the fact that too many students who attend for-profit colleges are paying exorbitant tuition and getting substandard educational experiences.

For most students and for American Society, IBRs will be a disaster. Income-based repayments may make sense for a small percentage of student-loan debtors, but if IBRs become the default option for college-student borrowers, the consequences will be disastrous.

First of all,  as I just said, IBRs reduce students' incentive to borrow as little money as possible to attend college. In fact, many students will conclude that it makes economic sense to borrow to the max. Thus, if IBRs become popular, the total amount of money students borrow every year to attend college will  continue going up--perhaps at a faster rate than in the past.

In addition, mass adoption of IBRs will hurt the American economy. If young people are locked into making student-loan payments for 20 or 25 years, their take-home pay will be smaller and they will have less money to purchase homes, have children, and save for retirement.

But this is the most chilling fact about IBRs: They have the potential for creating a large class of people who are in essence share croppers for the federal government They will be forced to contribute a percentage of their earnings to Uncle Sam for the majority of their working lives. No one can say with certainty what the psychological impact of this arrangement will be on American college graduates, but it could reduce their faith in the American dream and lead to mass cynicism about the American political process.

And IBRs will not increase the number of people who pay off their student loans. I predict that a majority of students who select IBR plans as their student-loan repayment option will be students who pay too much to attend for-profit colleges and don't make enough money after they complete their studies to pay back their loans.  A lot of these people will be unemployed or working in low-wage jobs that entitle them to pay nothing on their loans or to pay so little that their payments won't cover accruing interest.

These poor people will see their federal loan debt grow, not shrink, over the years, even if they make all their loan payments on time.  For example, the New York Times ran a story about a veterinarian who borrowed $300,000 to attend a for-profit veterinary school outside the United States. Even though this individual found a job as a veterinarian and is making regular student-loan payments under an IBR, her current job does not pay enough to enable her to make loan payments that are large enough to cover the accruing interest on her debt. A financial analyst estimated that when this veterinarian completes her 25 year repayment period, the amount of her debt will not have been paid off.  In fact, it will have doubled--from the $300,000 she originally borrowed to more than $600,000!

In short--and I say this emphatically--wholesale adoption of income-based repayment plans is madness and its long term effect will be drive millions of people out of the middle class and into a new class of Americans--sharecroppers for the federal government.

References

Sandy Baum & Michael McPherson. Obama's Aid Proposals Could Use a Reality Check. Chronicle of Higher Education, August 26, 2013. Accessible at: http://chronicle.com/article/Obamas-Aid-Proposals-Could/141265/

David Segal. High debt and falling demand Traps New Vets. New York Times, February 23, 2013. Accessible at: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/business/high-debt-and-falling-demand-trap-new-veterinarians.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0

Michael Stratford. You've Got Mail. Inside Higher Education, November 4, 2013. Accessible at: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/11/04/education-dept-will-email-35-million-student-loan-borrowers-about-income-based

A For-Profit College president is charged with a felony: Should Taxpayers Be Supporting Dade Medical College?

Last week, Miami prosecutors charged Ernesto Perez, President of Dade Medical College, with failing to report criminal arrests on a government form, which is a felony offense.  Specifically, Perez was charged with failing to report his conviction for battery and exposing himself to a child for a 1990 incident that took place in Wisconsin. He also failed to report his arrest in 2002 for aggravated assault. In addition, prosecutors charged Perez with two misdemeanor counts of perjury.

Ernesto Perez
Former President of Dade Medical College

Prior to this bump in the road, Perez was doing pretty well for himself.  He had twice  been appointed to the Florida Commission on Independent Education, the state agency charged with regulating for-profit colleges in Florida.  Last summer the South Florida Business Journal gave him an Ultimate Miami CEO Award for his "significant contributions to the local community." Not bad for a guy who dropped out of high school to join a heavy metal band.

Dade Medical College is a for-profit college with  2,000 enrolled students on five campuses. In 2012, the college received 87 percent of its revenues from federal aid--$33 million (according to a story in Huffington Post). The college attracts low-income Hispanics and African Americans who pay high tuition.  The vast majority of DMC students receive federal loans or Pell grants, and  25 percent of student borrowers default on their federal student loans within three years of beginning repayment.

Do Dade Medical College students receive good value for their tuition? Maybe not. The Florida Nursing Board put two of its campus nursing programs on probation this year due to low pass rates by DMC graduates on state licensing exams. One student who was interviewed by the Broward/Palm Beach/New Times said she had taken out $48,000 in federal student loans and yet she had professors who merely gave Powerpoint presentations or read from a book.

 Dade Medical College is a prime example of what's wrong with for-profit colleges in the United States.  Run by a high-school dropout and lavishly funded by the federal government, the college has high failure rates on nursing exams and high student-loan default rates.

Why is the federal government funding for-profit institutions like Dade Medical College? Maybe because the for-profit college industry is politically powerful.  Mr. Perez and his wife are big campaign contributors and have made contributions to Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, Harry Reid, and Marco Rubio. 

President Obama and Congress can talk all they want about quality controls on higher education. But the federal government is pumping billions of dollars a year into for-profit colleges and universities that prey on low-income students, provide poor quality education and have high student-loan default rates.  This is a huge scandal that our politicians refuse to address.

References

Patricia Born & Jay Weaver. Homestead mayor's ties to downtown redeveloper probed. Miami Herald, June 8, 2013. Accessible at: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/06/08/v-fullstory/3441091/homestead-mayors-ties-to-downtown.html

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/06/08/v-fullstory/3441091/homestead-mayors-ties-to-downtown.html#storylink=cpy

Francisco Alvarado. Dade Medical College Has Powerful Friends but Struggling Students.  Broward/Palm Beach  New Times, August 29, 2013.  Accessible at: http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/2013-08-29/news/dade-medical-college-has-powerful-friends-but-struggling-students/

Dade Medical College.  Ernesto Perez to be Honored at SFBJ CEO Awards. 2013. Accessible at: http://www.dademedical.edu/rightnow/ernestoperezbehonoredsfbjceoawards

David Halperin. $33 Million Per Year of Your Tax Money to For-Profit College Whose CEO Hid Criminal Record. Huffington Post, October 21, 2013. Accessible at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/davidhalperin/33-million-per-year-of-yo_b_4136451.html

Michael Vasquez. Amid criminal charges, CEO of Dade Medical College Resigns. Miami Herald, October 23, 2013. Accessible at: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/10/23/3706821/ernesto-perez-resigns-as-head.html

 

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/10/23/3706821/ernesto-perez-resigns-as-head.html#storylink=cpy

 

The Brookings Institution Makes A Proposal for Student Loan Reform: Let's Turn College Graduates Into Sharecroppers

The Hamilton Project, a public policy initiative sponsored by the Brookings Institution, issued a report this month that offers some promising ideas for reforming the federal student loan program. At the same time, not all of the ideas are good.

The Hamilton Project Proposal in a Nutshell

In a nutshell, the Hamilton Project proposes a simple income-based repayment plan for student borrowers that will replace the hodgepodge of repayment options now in place. Students will make loan payments based on a percentage of their income for a maximum of 25 years. Any unpaid balance owing at the end of this 25 year period will be forgiven with no tax consequences for the debtor.

Loan payments would be paid through a payroll deduction similar to Social Security deductions and debtors would be free to make larger loan payments than the minimum if they want to pay off their loans early. The proposal calls for the government to manage the repayment program instead of contracting out this work to private loan servicers.

In addition, the Hamilton Project recommends the elimination of interest subsidies for low-income borrowers while they are in school. The authors point out that these subsidies do nothing to increase the number of low-income students who enroll for college since the subsidy doesn't really benefit them until they enter the loan-repayment phase.  In the authors' opinion, money spent on subsidizing interest rates should be directed toward grants.



Long-Term Student-Loan Repayment Plans Will Create a New Class of Sharecroppers
Sharecropper cabin, 1936
Photo by Carl Mydans

Finally, the Hamilton Project proposes important reforms for the private student-loan industry.  Most significantly, the Project recommends the repeal of a 2005 Bankruptcy Code provision that makes it almost impossible for borrowers to discharge private student loans in bankruptcy.  The Project recommends that private student loans be treated like any other unsecured debt in bankruptcy.

The Hamilton Project's Proposal Contains Some Good Ideas

I like some of the Hamilton Project's proposals.  First of all, I heartily endorse the Hamilton Project's proposal for providing better bankruptcy protection for people who took out private loans from the banks. Congress made a mistake when it amended the Bankruptcy Code in 2005 to make it almost impossible for debtors to discharge their private student loans in bankruptcy. As I have said before, repealing the 2005 provision would probably have the salutary effect of driving the banks out of the private student- loan business.

I also like the Hamilton Project's proposal for simplifying the process for student debtors to participate in an income-based repayment plan and for having the government handle loan repayments through payroll deductions rather than having private student-loan servicers manage the repayment process.  Some of the private loan servicers are harassing delinquent student-loan debtors, and I would like to see their operations shut down.

Flaws in the Hamilton Project's Proposal

But  the Hamilton Project's proposal has some flaws.  First and most importantly, the plan calls for student-loan repayment obligations to stretch out for as long as a quarter of a century. In essence then, student-loan debtors will become sharecroppers for the government, paying a portion of their wages over most of their working lives in return for the privilege of going to college. I am opposed to lengthy income-based repayment plans as a matter of principle.

And, as I have said before, income-based repayment plans reduce students' incentives to borrow as little as possible and they reduce the colleges' incentives to keep their costs down.

The Hamilton Proposal is Based on a False Assumption

The Hamilton Proposal is based on the premise that most students don't borrow that much money, and thus they should have no trouble paying off their loans under an income-based repayment plan in just a few years. It points out that almost 70 percent of student-loan debtors borrow less than $10,000.

But as the Hamilton Project acknowledged in footnote 7 of its report, by the time people go into default, they owe considerably more than they borrowed due to penalties and accruing interest. If interest rates accrue for low-income borrowers while they are in school or if low-income borrowers' income-based payments are too low to cover accruing interest, then the amount of their debt will become larger--probably much larger--than they originally borrowed.

Conclusion: Some of the Hamilton Project's Proposals Have Promise, But We Should Avoid Putting Student Loan Debtors in Long-Term Repayment Plans

Some of he Hamilton Project's proposals have promise.  Restoring bankruptcy protection for private student-loan borrowers and eliminating the private student-loan repayment servicers are good ideas.

But the people who have been hurt the most by the federal student loan program are young people who attended for-profit colleges. As the Hamilton Project pointed out, people under 21 years of age have the highest loan default rates of any age group, and we know from many sources that people who attended for-profit colleges have the highest student-loan default rates.

The Hamilton Project's proposal is likely to put a lot of young, low-income people into long-term repayment plans they will never pay off.  And many of these long-term debtors--perhaps most of them-will be people who attended expensive for-profit colleges.

We simply must shut down the for-profit colleges.  Otherwise, the Hamilton Project's proposal for putting student-loan debtors in 25-year repayment plans will likely created a 21st century version of indentured servants--people who attended for-profit colleges that were too expensive and who will spend the majority of their working lives paying for college experiences that did not enable them to earn a salary large enough to quickly pay off their student loans.

References

Susan Dynarski and Daniel Kreisman. Loans for Equal Opportunity: Making Borrowing Work for Today's Students. Hamilton Project, Brookings Institution, October 2013. Accessible at: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2013/10/21%20student%20loans%20dynarski/thp_dynarskidiscpaper_final.pdf

An Exercise in Cynicism: The Obama Administration Mucks Around in Louisiana's School Voucher Program

Let's try to put ourselves inside the mind of Attorney General Eric Holder as he tried to decide whether the federal government should intervene in Louisiana's school voucher program.



With friends like Eric Holder, Louisiana school children don't need enemies.

"Let's see," Mr. Holder might have said to himself, "if I impede Louisiana's voucher program, I will please the teacher unions, because they hate all school vouchers."  Since the teacher unions are a core constituency of the Democratic Party, interfering with Louisiana's voucher program would be a big plus for President Obama.

"Second," Mr. Holder might have mused, "if I harass the Louisiana voucher plan, the federal government will make it more difficult for poor children to attend religious schools." So, that would be another big plus.

"Finally," Holder may have thought to himself, "sidetracking a Republican governor's school reform initiative is never a bad thing to do."  So that would be another plus in favor of federal intervention in Louisiana's voucher program.

Hey, what's not to like? 

And so the Obama administration has intervened in an old school-desegregation lawsuit, seeking to persuade a federal judge that a federal court must decide whether children residing in districts covered by desegregation orders may participate in Louisiana's school voucher program for poor children.

I have to agree with Governor Bobby Jindal on this one.  What Eric Holder and the Obama administration has done is shameful.  As Governor Jindal put it, Obama and Holder "are trying to keep kids trapped in failing public schools against the wishes of their parents."

Let me be clear. I am not an uncritical cheerleader for all of Governor Jindal's school reform initiatives. I think the tenure reforms he rammed through the Louisiana legislature are deeply flawed. And Governor Jindal's school voucher program is not perfect either.

But at least Louisiana is trying to improve its failing school systems, and I think it is making some progress.  I remember visiting New Orleans schools during the mid-1990s, before Hurricane Katrina came and basically wiped the New Orleans school system off the map.  The New Orleans schools were terrible during the pre-Katrina years; and no one--liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, white person or black--would want Louisiana's then largest school system to return to those days.

Today, more New Orleans students attend charter schools than public schools, and most New Orleans schools are slowly getting better.  Are they perfect? No they are not.  But Eric Holder's attempt to impede Louisiana's school voucher program won't help a single impoverished school child get a better education. 

If the Obama administration truly wants to do something to improve education in this country, it should take on the for-profit colleges that have exploited millions of Americans who just wanted to get a good education--including a lot of low-income and minority young people. 

But that would be too hard.  It is much easier to launch senseless and expensive litigation against a Southern state's efforts to improve its education system.  Louisiana's Education Superintendent John White called the litigation "deeply cynical:" and off course, he's right.

References

Michelle Millhollon. Jindal rebukes Fed voucher stance. The (Baton Rouge) Advocate, August 25, 2013, p. IB.

Why President Obama's Proposal for Controlling College Costs is a Nonstarter

In politics as in life, there are problem solvers and there are problem managers.

President Obama is a problem manager.  Before he was elected president, he saw Guantanamo as a problem to be solved, and he promised to close it. Five years into his term of office, Guantanamo is still open; it is being managed.

Ma'am, I don't solve problems; I manage them.

Likewise with the student loan crisis. Fifty Million Americans now hold $1.2 trillion in student loan debt.  About 6.5 million people have formally defaulted, and another 9 million are not making payments because they have been granted deferments or forbearances. 

For-profit colleges account for almost half of all student loan defaults.  The Department of Education reports that about 20 percent of student loans originating in the for-profit sector default within three years of entering repayment, but DOE estimates that almost half of all students who borrow money to attend a for-profit institution will eventually default.

Now that's a problem. Is the Obama administration trying to solve it? No it is not.

Last week, President Obama proposed the creation of a college rating system whereby the federal government will rank colleges and universities based on their costs, their graduation rates, the number of low-income students they enroll, and some other factors.  The President hopes to link this rating system to the federal student loan program, perhaps allowing students who attend high-ranking colleges to borrow money at a lower interest rate.

By introducing such a system, the President hopes to encourage colleges to keep their tuition prices down and stop the ever-increasing cost of attending college. In short, President Obama wants to manage the student loan crisis, not solve it.

Why is President Obama's college ranking system doomed to fail? Several reasons:

Colleges will just game the system. First as the New York Times pointed out in a recent editorial, colleges are very good at gaming the system when it comes to measuring college quality. We've seen how they've manipulated data to make themselves look better in the U.S. News & World Report rankings.  They will use the same tactics if the feds implement a college rating system. So why go through this charade?

DOE doesn't even give us useful information about student-loan default rates. Second, DOE has shown itself unable to provide the public with accurate information about one simple measurement--the student-loan default rate.  DOE only measures the number of people who default during the first three year of the repayment period--currently about 13 percent.  But the number of people who default over the lifetime of the repayment period is much higher--probably double DOE's posted rate.  And that''s the number the public really needs to know.

If DOE can't report an accurate and useful student loan default rate--a simple thing to do, what makes anyone think it can manage a much more complicated college ranking system?

Students and families won't choose a college based on the federal ranking system. Third, students and their families won't make college choices based on the federal government's rankings, so why set up a bureaucratic ranking system?  Texas high school graduate are not going choose between enrolling at the University of Texas or Texas A & M based on rankings reported by Secretary of Education Arne Duncan.  They choose their college based on a host of very personal factors, not the least of which involves the varsity football team's win-loss record.

The Clery Act, which Congress passed in 1990, demonstrates my point.  Congress passed the Clery Act in the wake of the rape and murder of Jeanne Clery, a freshman at Lehigh University, based on the belief that parents need more information about crime rates in and around the nation's colleges and universities.  The law requires all higher education institutions that receive federal funds to report crime activity in their campus communities on an annual basis.

Although the Clery Act has some useful features--colleges are required to notify the campus community of ongoing criminal activities--I have never met anyone who made a decision about where to go to college based on the Clery Act's crime reports.

If students and their parents aren't going to make college choices based on the Clery Act's crime statistics, they are not going to make them based on Secretary Duncan's rating system.  Does anyone disagree?

Why impose more federal regulations on a host of colleges that are doing a pretty good job? Finally, President Obama wants to impose another layer of bureaucratic measurements on colleges and universities that are already overly regulated.  And a lot of these institutions are doing a pretty good job.  College tuition has gone through the roof at the Ivy League colleges and other elite universities, but a college education is still fairly reasonable at the nation's community colleges and regional universities, like the one where I teach.

The growing level of student-loan debt is a big problem that gets bigger every day, and there is no simple solution. Nevertheless, it is clear that the rapacious for-profit college industry is the source of a lot of student indebtedness and about half of the student-loan defaults. 

We won't solve the student-loan crisis until we bring the for-profit colleges under control. Unfortunately, President Obama doesn't have the political courage to tackle that problem.  He would rather rank all colleges than put the bad apples out of business.

In short, President Obama doesn't want to solve the student-loan crisis, he wants to manage it--at last until his term of office expires.

References

Editorial. A Federal Prod to Lower College Costs. New York Times, August 22, 2013. Accessible at: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/23/opinion/a-federal-prod-to-lower-college-costs.html?_r=0

Michael Shear and Tamar Lewin. On Bus Tour, Obama Seeks to Shame Colleges Into Easing Costs. New York Times, August 22, 2013. Accessible at: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/23/us/politics/obama-vows-to-shame-colleges-into-keeping-costs-down.html?ref=opinion

Thanks, NY Times, for Another Tepid Editorial About the Student Loan Crisis

In The Big Lebowski, Bunny Lebowski tells the Dude that her boyfriend is a nihilist. "He doesn't care about anything," she explains.

The Dude, Donny and Walter:

"That must be exhausting," the Dude replies sympathetically.

This scene reminds me of the New York Times editorial writers. Every day, they go to work and pen editorials opining on all the world's problems: global warming, the crisis in the Middle East, the European Debt crisis, obsesity--it must be exhausting!

Of course, not all of the Times' editorial advice is useful.  Earlier this week, a Times editorial, entitled "College's True Cost," commended the Obama administration's efforts to get colleges to communicate more clearly with students about the cost of attending college. As the Times reported approvingly, "[t]he Obama administration is developing a standardized form" that all colleges can use to report on how much a year of college costs and estimating the monthly payments students will owe when paying off their student loans.

"Unfortunately," the Times concluded, "colleges are unlikely to embrace this forthright approach unless the federal government makes it mandatory." Right. More government regulations will solve all our problems.

Obviously, givng students more information about their student-loan obligations is a good thing. But giving students clearer information about their student-loan debt burden is not going to solve the student-loan crisis any more than telling people how many calories are in a Big Mac will solve the nation's obesity crisis. People are still going to buy those Big Macs and students are still going to take out college loans because most of them can't afford to attend college without borrowing a lot of money.

Solving the student-loan debt crisis is going to take more than the creation of a standardized form for colleges to give students when they dole out student-loan money. As I've said before, these things must be done:

• The Department of Education must stop hiding the true student-loan default rate and give the public more accurate reports on how many people have stopped paying on their student loans.
• Insolvent student-loan debtors must be given reasonable access to the bankruptcy courts.
• The Federal government must stop financing the for-profit schools and colleges, which have extraordinarily high student-loan default rates.
• Colleges must operate more efficiently and rein in their costs.

Unless these things are done, other reform tactics are just a cosmetic approach to a very serious national problem.

References

Editorial (2012, June 7). College's true cost. New York Times, p. A24.

The Federal Government Should Stop Bankrolling the For-Profit College Industry

Floyd Norris recently wrote a mild but provocative article in the New York Times that focused on ITT Educational Services, a for-profit corporation that offers post-secondary education programs in 48 states. Norris reported that ITT students pay an average cost of $48,000 in tuition and fees to receive a two-year associate's degree in business administration.

Of course students can obtain a two-year associate's degree from a public community college for a fraction of that cost. One would think the federal government would develop policies to encourage students to attend reasonably priced community colleges instead of supporting the for-profit college industry.

As has been widely reported, for-profit colleges enroll about 10 percent of all post-secondary students but get about 25 percent of the federal student-aid money. According to Norris, the federal government guaranteed nearly $24 billion in loans for students attending for-profit schools in 2010-2011 and  distributed nearly $9 billion in grants that went to for-profit institutions.

Without question, most of the for-profit colleges could not exist without federal student-aid money.  For example, in 2011, ITT received 89 percent of its revenues from the federal government in the form of student loans and grants. (Norris, 2012, p. B7)  Meanwhile, state and local-government are drastically cutting their financial support for public colleges and universities.

In my opinion, the federal government should stop funding the for-profit colleges altogether and redirect the money toward public community colleges.  Unfortunately, such a reform is not coming any time soon.  The for-profits pay highly effective lobbyists to protect their interests (Kirkham, 2012), and they make strategic political contributions to key legislators in Washington (Kirkham, 2011).

So this is the situation. Billions of federal dollars flow each year into the coffers of for-profit schools and colleges that educate about 10 percent of the nation's post-secondary students and account for about half of all the student-loan defaults (Kirkham, 2012). Until Congress stops subsidizing the for-profit colleges industry, we will never solve the student-loan crisis, which is growing worse with each passing year.

References
Kirkham, C. (2012, February 3). Auction 2012: For-profit colleges win when lobbying blitz weakens regs. Huffington Post.   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/03/auction-2012-education-for-profit-colleges_n_1251072.html

Kirkham, C. (2011, July 29). John Boehner backed deregulation of online learning, leading to explosive growth at for-profit colleges. Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/29/john-boehner-for-profit-colleges_n_909589.html

Norris, F. (2012, May 25). Colleges for profit are growing, with U.S. aid. New York Times, p. B1.

Today’s New York Times Editorial About Student Loans is Not Very Useful

Today’s lead editorial in the New York Times is entitled “Full Disclosure for Student Borrowers.” Basically, the Times says that “[c]olleges, lenders and Congress must ensure that students understand their debt burden.”

Pardon me, Mr. and Ms. New York Times editorial writers, but that advice is not very useful. It is true that a lot of student-loan borrowers did not understand the nature of their loan obligations. Some did not realize they had borrowed from private lenders instead of the federal student loan program, for example; and a great many made poor decisions with regard to what they chose to study. People who borrowed a $100,000 or more to pursue degrees in religious studies, sociology, or some other non-remunerative field did not make smart decisions.

But the fact that many students took out college loans without understanding the consequences is only part of the problem. A bigger part of the program is this: The student loan program has spawned a rapacious for-profit college industry, which Congress refuses to regulate. As a whole, this industry has very high student-loan default rates; and many of them are much more expensive than public-college alternatives. Today, the for-profit institutions enroll about 10 percent of all the post-secondary loan borrowers but they receive about 25 percent of the Federal student aid money.

Another problem is the private student-loan market, which generally charges students higher interest rates than the federal student-loan program and offers students fewer protections like economic hardship deferments. Congress passed legislation that makes it almost impossible for students to discharge their private student loans in bankruptcy, which is an outrage.

If the New York Times wishes to offer useful advice about solving the trillion-dollar student-loan mess, it needs to endorse the following actions:

More accurate reporting of student-loan default rates by the U.S. Department of Education, particularly the default rate for students enrolled in for-profit schools,

Repeal of the statutes making it nearly impossible for insolvent students to discharge their student loans in bankruptcy,

Passage of effective consumer-protection laws that will protect students from unscrupulous college recruiters and colleges’ misleading representations about job prospects for graduates of post-secondary programs,

Congressional or executive action to stop the federal government and the student-loan guarantee agencies from garnishing elderly defaulters’ Social Security checks.

Perhaps the New York Times has offered more useful information about the student-loan crisis in the past.  But the advice offered on today’s editorial page does not go nearly far enough toward solving a problem that is causing hardship and suffering for millions of people.

References

Editorial (2012, May 23). Full disclosure for student borrowers. New York Times, p. A20.