Hillary Clinton proposes a three-month moratorium on student-loan payments and massive loan refinancing: A good idea, but difficult to implement

According to the Washington Post, Hillary Clinton has proposed a three-month moratorium on student-loan payments to allow borrowers time to restructure their student loans at lower interest rates.

Let me say flat out that this is a good idea. As the press has widely reported, about 40 percent of college-loan borrowers who are in the repayment phase of their loans aren't making payments. These people are seeing their loan balances go up as interest accrues on unpaid debt, and they desperately need repayment options they can afford.

In addition, millions of people who are making their loan payments would benefit from repayment plans that would lower monthly payments and take advantage of lower interest rates.

Hillary's proposal underscores this stark fact: The federal student-loan program is in chaos. There are currently eight income-based repayment plans, and even experts are confused about how the different options work and which students are eligible for the various repayment plans. Giving students a three-month hiatus to sort all this out is an excellent idea.

But why is Hillary making this proposal now? Was she prompted by pure politics--making a play for young people's votes? Is her proposal an attempt to win over Bernie Sanders' supporters?

Obviously, Hillary's proposal was driven by political consideration. But I think there is something more going on--namely panic. I think Hillary and the Democratic establishment finally realize that millions of Americans are overwhelmed by unmanageable student-loan debt. These distressed debtors are frustrated, demoralized and angry; and they won't vote for Hillary unless they think she will provide them with tangible relief if she is elected President.

In short, the Democrats see blood in the water; they know they must do something substantive to keep young voters in the Democratic column in the November election.   And even Hillary's fiercest critics must admit that her massive student-loan refinancing proposal is substantive and significant.

Nevertheless, I don't see how Hillary's plan can be effectively implemented. The federal student loan program is like a massive battleship plunging across a raging ocean at full speed--it can't be turned around quickly.  Here are some of the problems:

First, simply determining who is eligible for Hillary's refinancing program will be a huge challenge. More than 40 million Americans have outstanding student loans, and most of them are in the repayment phase.  Just figuring out who is eligible to stop making loan payments and who is not will be an enormous headache.

For example, a lot of borrowers took out private student loans that aren't part of the federal student loan program.  Of course, private loans won't be covered by Hillary's moratorium. But research has shown that many borrowers don't know whether their loans are federal or private, and some have both kinds of loans. If Hillary implements a moratorium, a good many borrowers will stop making payments on their private loans, which will get them in trouble with their lenders.

And 5 million borrowers are already in income-based repayment plans under very favorable terms. Can these people stop making payments for three months? If not, who is going to notify them that they are not eligible to participate in the moratorium?

Second, the Department of Education may not have the capacity to meet the bureaucratic challenge of refinancing millions of loans over a three-month period. There are 43 million people with outstanding student loans, but many borrowers signed multiple promissory notes--perhaps a dozen or more. And some of these documents date back 20, 25, and even 30 years.  

Refinancing all these loans will be a gigantic undertaking, the bureaucratic equivalent of launching Obamacare. I seriously doubt whether DOE or the various creditors have the resources to refinance all these loans over a three-month period. After all, DOE has had great difficulty coping with Corinthian Colleges' former students who sought loan forgiveness in the wake of Corinthian's bankruptcy. 

Third, once college borrowers are given license to stop making payments for a brief period, it will be very difficult to get them back in the repayment mode. In some ways, Hillary's proposal is like the European Union's decision to accept refugees from the Middle East. Once the stream of migrants began moving, the Europeans found themselves unable to handle the volume of refugees that crossed into the EU. And there was no effective way to regulate the flow.

Likewise, Hillary's proposal to allow millions of college borrowers to stop making loan payments while they refinance their student loans will create a massive upheaval in the federal student loan program. If her plan goes forward, I think we will see millions of people stop making loan payments, whether or not they are eligible for Hillary's moratorium. 

Finally, Hillary's student-loan refinancing plan may be nothing more than a way to shove borrowers into 20- and 25-year repayment plans.  The Obama administration has been aggressively pushing college borrowers into long-term income-based repayment plans. It has said it hopes to have nearly 7 million people in IBRPs by the end of 2017.

Hillary's pan will accelerate the movement of student borrowers into long-term repayment plans.  If it is implemented, we will surely see 10 million people or more in IBRPs, which will effectively make them indentured servants to Uncle Sam, paying a percentage of their income to the government for a majority of their working lives just for the privilege of going to college.

As I have said repeatedly, IBRPs are a bad idea and nothing more than a way to keep a lid on the student-loan crisis. It would be very disappointing if Hillary implemented a student-loan refinancing plan that has the primary effect of lengthening the loan repayment period for millions of Americans.

Conclusion: In spite of its drawbacks, Hillary's loan refinancing proposal is a good idea. In spite of all the drawbacks to Hillary's refinancing idea, I hope she goes forward with it if she becomes President. Almost anything is better than the present state of affairs.  Lowering interest rates will give millions of borrowers some relief from their debt. And even if her plan forces more borrowers into IBRPs, that option is better than having them continue to shoulder monthly payments that are so large as to be unmanageable.

Besides, Hillary's scheme, if implemented, will expose the utter chaos of the federal student loan program, which the federal government has hidden from the American people. Once the public realizes how many millions of people are suffering from their participation in the federal student loan program, maybe we will see real reform--which is nothing more and nothing less than reasonable access to the bankruptcy courts. 

References

Anne Gearan and Abby Phillip. Clinton to propose 3-month hiatus for repayment of  student loans. Washington Post, July 5, 2016. Accessible at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/07/05/clinton-to-propose-3-month-hiatus-for-repayment-of-student-loans/?hpid=hp_special-topic-chain_clinton-loans-11pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

Josh Mitchell. More than 40% of Student Borrowers Aren't Making Payments. Wall Street Journal, April 7, 2016. Accessible at http://www.wsj.com/articles/more-than-40-of-student-borrowers-arent-making-payments-1459971348

Alia Wong. When Loan Forgiveness Isn't Enough. Atlantic Monthly, June 15, 2015. Accessible at http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/06/government-corinthian-college-loan-plan-problems/395513/

Democratic Party Platform Plank on Higher Education: A Big Pile of Horse Manure

The Democratic Party released its Platform this week, or rather it released a draft marked "Deliberative and Predecisional." The Higher Education plank is only a few hundred words long, but it still adds up to one big pile of horse manure.

First, the Democrats promise to cut interest rates on student loans, "thereby preventing the federal government from making billions of dollars in profits from student loans." What was the Platform Committee smoking when it wrote that sentence?

Everyone who knows even a little bit about the student-loan crisis realizes that the federal government is not making a profit on student loans. It is incurring huge losses--losses that are growing by the day.

Why do I say this? First of all, the student-loan default rate is catastrophic--far higher than the anemic rate the Department of Education publishes every autumn. The Brookings Institution reported that almost half of students who take out loans to attend a for-profit institution default in five years. The five-year default rate for students overall is 28 percent.

Moreover, the Obama administration is pushing distressed student-loan borrowers into long-term repayment plans that set monthly payments so low that borrowers are not paying down accruing interest. In fact, more than half of student borrowers are seeing their loan balances go up two years after beginning the repayment phase of their loan--not down.

Do the Brookings numbers indicate to you that the government is making a profit on the student loan program? Of course not. And the fact that Senators Elizabeth Warren, Charles Schumer, Barbara Boxer, and now the whole Democratic Party insist that the government is reaping huge profits off the student loan program demonstrates that the Democrats are clueless about the student-loan crisis or that they are lying about it.

The Democrats also promise to "simplify and expand access to income-based repayment so that no student loan borrowers have to pay more than they can afford." In other words, the Democrats want to push more and more student borrowers into 20- or 25-year income based repayment plans (IBRPs).

Five million people are in IBRPs now; and President Obama wants to enroll 2 million more by the end of next year. Apparently, the Democrats want to increase that number even further.

Of course, IBRPs are nothing more than a conspiracy by our government to create a giant class of sharecroppers who will pay a percentage of their incomes to Uncle Sam over the majority of their working lives.

And finally, the Democrats pledge to "restore the prior standard in bankruptcy law to allow borrowers with student loans to discharge their debts in bankruptcy as a measure of last resort." I interpret this pie-in-the-sky promise to mean the Democrats will delete the "undue hardship" provision from the Bankruptcy Code.

I hope that is a promise the Democrats will keep if Hillary becomes President. If Congress would actually strike the "undue hardship" standard from the Bankruptcy Code, millions of Americans would be lining up to file bankruptcy within a week after the law is changed. And if distressed student-loan borrowers could truly get relief from their oppressive student-loan debt, a half trillion dollars in student loans would be wiped off the books.

That scenario would cause the student-loan program to collapse, which would cause hundreds of colleges and universities to close.

Our government will never let that happen. Which is why the Democratic Party's Higher Education platform is a big pile of horse manure.

Senators Schumer and Warren: Shoveling horse manure

References

Democratic Party Platform Draft, July 1, 2016 [Deliberative and Predecisional]. Accessible at https://demconvention.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/2016-DEMOCRATIC-PARTY-PLATFORM-DRAFT-7.1.16.pdf

Schumer and Warren Pushing Obama to Address Student Debt. CNN Transcript, January 12, 2016. Accessible at http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1601/12/nday.06.html

Democrartic Senators Highlight Obscene Government Profits Off Student Loan Program. Senator Warren press release, January 31, 2014. Accessible at https://www.warren.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=329

Davidson v. Sallie Mae: Another student-loan debtor sheds debt in bankruptcy because institution she attended was not on Department of Education's Approved School List

In my last post I reported on Decena v. Citizens Bank, in which a New York bankruptcy judge discharged Lorelei Decena's student-loan debt in bankruptcy because Decena had borrowed the money to attend an African medical school that was not on the Department of Education's Federal School Code List.

Normally, student-loan debt is not dischargeable in bankruptcy unless the borrower can show that repayment would create an "undue hardship," a very difficult standard to meet. But in Decena's case, the bankruptcy judge ruled  that St. Christopher's College of Medicine, the African medical school Decena attended, was not an "eligible educational institution" because the school was not on the Department of Education's list of approved schools Thus, Decena could discharge the loans she took out to attend St. Christopher's (more than $160,000) without having to show undue hardship.

Richard Gaudreau, writing for Huffington Post, recently reported on another case in which a student-loan debtor freed herself from student-loan debt  because the institution she attended was not listed in  DOE's Federal School Code List.

In Davidson v. Sallie Mae, Jennifer Lynn Davidson borrowed approximately $20,000 from Sallie Mae to attend a "Co-Active Coach Training Program" operated by an outfit  called CTI. As she explained in her Adversary Proceeding complaint, Davidson quickly became disenchanted with the program after her instructor swore at her during the first session and then announced that there would be a clothing-optional pool party at the end of the program day. She immediately notified CTI that she was withdrawing from the program.

Davidson sued Sallie Mae in an Oregon bankruptcy court to discharge her educational loans in bankruptcy, and  she eventually persuaded Sallie Mae to sign a Stipulated Judgment agreeing to allow her to discharge the debt.

Why did Sallie Mae throw in the towel and allow Davidson to free herself from her student loans? Because--as Gaudreau explained in his Huffington Post article--CTI was not on the Department of Education's Federal School Code List.

What are we to make of Davidson's victory?

First, Sallie Mae is apparently loaning money to people to enroll in all kinds of so-called educational programs without regard to program quality, secure in the belief that people who take out loans for these programs will find it  virtually impossible to discharge their debt in bankruptcy.  In Davidson's case, however, Sallie Mae slipped up and loaned Davidson money to attend CTI's "Co-Active Coach Training Program" without checking to see whether CTI was on the Department of Education's Federal School Code List.

Second, students who borrow money to enroll in programs at marginal institutions like CTI and St. Christopher's College of Medicine should definitely consult DOE's School Code List to determine if the institution they attended is on it. If the school is not on that list, a borrower has a reasonable shot at shedding the student-loan debt in bankruptcy without having to show that it would be an "undue hardship" to repay the loan.

As Gaudreau pointed out, bankruptcy courts are not in total agreement as to what constitutes an educational loan that is covered by the Bankruptcy Code's undue hardship rule. But Lorelei Decena convinced a bankruptcy judge that St. Christopher's College of Medicine was not an "eligible educational institution" for purposes of the undue hardship standard; and Jennifer Lynn Davidson apparently persuaded Sallie Mae that loans taken out to attend CTI were likewise not subject to the undue hardship rule.

Congratulations to Lorelei Decena and Jennifer Lynn Davidson for their victories in the bankruptcy courts. As for Sallie Mae and Citizens Bank, which collectively lost $180,000, they got the bankruptcy-court outcomes they so richly deserved.


References

Davidson v. Sallie Mae,  Case No. 12-33122-TMB-7, Adversary Proceeding Number 12-03171 (Bankr. D. Or. Aug. 15, 2012) (Stipulated Judgment to Discharge Educational Loan Debt and Dismiss Adversary Proceeding) (from an article appearing in Getoutofdebt.org). Accessible at https://getoutofdebt.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/183-1_new.pdf

Decena v. Citizens Bank, 549 B.R. 11 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2016).

Richard Gaudreau. Some Private Loans Eligible for Automatic Discharge. Huffinton Post, June 21, 2016. Accessible at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-gaudreau/when-is-a-student-loan-no_b_10530086.html

U.S. Department of Education. Federal School Code List 2016-1017.

Decena v. Citizens Bank: A woman borrowed $161,000 to attend medical school in Africa and discharged the debt in bankruptcy

Lorelei Decena, an American, attended medical school at St. Christopher's College of Medicine in Senegal, West Africa.  After completing the program in 2004, she returned to the United States only to learn that St. Christopher's was not an accredited medical school and that she was not eligible to take the medical board exams in many states.

Decena financed her medical studies with a series of loans totaling $161,592, which she took out from Citizens Bank, which is headquartered in Rhode Island. She made loan payments from 2006 until 2011, but she quit making payments when she returned to school to obtain a masters' degree.

In 2015, Decena filed a "no asset" Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition and later filed an adversary complaint to discharge her student loans with Citizens Bank. Citizens Bank failed to answer her complaint and the court clerk entered a default.

At a hearing to get a default judgment entered against Citizens, an attorney appeared to represent the bank. Citizens' attorney argued that the default should be set aside on the ground that Decena had sent her lawsuit by regular mail rather than certified mail. The bankruptcy court  rejected this argument, reasonably pointing out that Citizens obviously had notice of Decena's lawsuit because it had sent a lawyer to defend the bank's interests.

The court then considered whether Decena had a legitimate ground for discharging her student-loan debt in bankruptcy. Interestingly, Decena did not argue that it would be an undue hardship for her to pay back the loans--the position taken by most student-loan debtors in bankruptcy. Rather she maintained that the loan was not the kind education loan debt that was covered by the undue hardship exception.

The court agreed with her. In essence, the court ruled that a private loan to attend an unaccredited, unlicensed medical school is not the kind of loan that can be excepted from discharge in bankruptcy under the undue hardship rule. Nor was it a "qualified education loan" that came under the undue hardship exception.

Key to the court's decision was its finding that St. Christopher's College of Medicine was not listed in the Federal Schools Code during the year Decena completed her studies. Thus, the court ruled, Decena "established a prima facie case that St. Christopher's is not an 'eligible educational institution,'" entitled to benefit from the Bankruptcy Code's undue hardship rule.

What can we learn from this quirky case? Three things:

1. Don't enroll in an unlicensed, unaccredited African medical school if you want to practice medicine in the United States. Perhaps Lorelei Decena should have investigated St. Christopher's a little more thoroughly before borrowing money to study there.

2. If you are a bank, don't lend money to someone to study medicine in Africa unless the institution the debtor will attend is on the Federal Schools Code list. Citizens Bank was apparently under the impression that its loans to Decena could not be easily discharged in bankruptcy, but the bank was wrong.

3. If you are an African medical school that seeks to enroll American students, you should make sure your institution is listed in the Federal Schools Code.

In fact, St. Christopher's lapse in this regard is puzzling. Over 500 foreign institutions are listed on the Federal Schools Code, making them eligible to participate in the U.S. student loan program, including more than two dozen foreign medical schools. Why didn't St. Christopher's do whatever it had to do to get its name on that list?

This case illustrates the global expanse of the federal student loan program, which allows Americans to borrow money to attend colleges all over the world (although not St. Christopher's in Senegal). We are a wealthy nation of more than 300 million people. You would think we could manage medical education in such a way that no one would need to borrow money in order to study medicine in a foreign country.

_______________________________________________

Note. St. Christopher's web site contains these statements: 

Graduates of St. Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine may practice medicine in the United States through the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates (ECFMG).  

*****

It is important that future students intending on practicing medicine in the United States obtain licensing information direct from the appropriate state agencies. This information can be obtained from the Federal State Medical Boards (FSMB). Students are expected to have a thorough understanding of medical licensure laws in their state or states of intended practice before applying. Many states have specific rules and requirements beyond the medical school curriculum and applicants are urged to make specific inquiries into what these are before making a commitment to the College.

References

Decena v. Citizens Bank, 549 B.R. 11 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2016).

Federal student loans for Americans to study overseas: Is this a good use of taxpayer money?

If you've decided to get your degree from a school outside the U.S., congratulations. Now let us help you find out which international schools participate in the federal student aid programs and guide you through the process of getting federal aid to make a dent in that tuition bill.

U.S. Department of Education web site

Here's something I bet you didn't know. Not only can you take out federal loans to attend one of 5000 colleges and schools in the U.S., you can get a federal student loan to study abroad. In fact, the Department of Education lists more than 500 foreign schools that are eligible to receive federal student aid.

Would you like to study religion at the Nazarene Theological College in Manchester, England? Just take out a federal loan. Or perhaps you're interested in getting a psychology degree from the Salvation Army's Booth University College in Winnipeg, Canada. The federal government will loan you the money. Literally, you can use federal student loan money to attend college almost any place in the world: China, England, France, Israel, Australia, Hungary, Bulgaria--even Russia.

The Department of Education is particularly hospitable to foreign medical schools and maintains links on its web sites to 25 medical schools outside the U.S.  DOE reported that American students attending Medical University of Silesia in Katowice, Poland, borrowed an average of $80,000 in federal student loans to attend that medical school, plus private loans averaging $55,000.

Or perhaps you prefer to study medicine in a sunnier clime? You can take out federal loans to attend American University of the Caribbean School of Medicine in St. Maarten, but it's pricier than a Polish medical school.  American students borrowed an average of $315,674 to attend the medical school in St. Maarten, which is owned by DeVry Education Group, a publicly traded corporation on the New York Stock Exchange. 

But most Americans don't take out federal loans to obtain medical degrees overseas; most use student-loan money to study abroad for a semester or a year. Indeed, the growing popularity of Study Abroad programs is one reason an American college education costs so much more than it once did. Americans are taking out student loans to spend a few months in Paris, London, Barcelona, or dozens of other exotic cities.

American taxpayers are already subsidizing 5,000 U.S. colleges and schools that participate in the federal student aid program--institutions running the gamut from Harvard University to Toni & Guy Hairdressing Academy.  Do we really want to loan students money to attend schools overseas--especially at a time when so many colleges in the U.S. are on the verge of closing due to declining enrollment?

Student-Loan Default Rates Go Down As Enrollment in Income-Driven Repayment Plans Goes Up:" It Hurts So Much To Face Reality"

Earlier in the week, the Department of Education issued a press release that contains good news about the student loan program. Or does it?

DOE reported that enrollment is increasing in the Department's various income-driven repayment plans (IDRs), including PAYE, REPAYS and six other income-based student loan repayment programs.  About 5 million are now enrolled in IDRs, up 117 percent from March of 2014.

At the same time, student-loan hardship deferments, loan delinquencies, and new defaults are going down.  According to DOE:

As of March 31, 2016, about 350,000 [Direct Loan] recipients were deferring their payments due to unemployment or economic hardship, a 28.6 percent decrease from the prior year. In that same time period, there was a 36.6 percent decrease in the number of FFEL recipients in a deferment status due to unemployment or economic hardship.

DOE also reported that delinquency rates are down 10.6 percent from last year, and student-loan default rates are also down.

Is this good news? Yes and no.

Obviously, a trend toward fewer economic-hardship deferments, fewer student-loan defaults, and fewer lower delinquencies is a good thing. It is especially heartening to see a decline in the number of people who have loans in deferment, because these people see their loan balances go up due to accruing interest during the time they aren't making loan payments.

But this good news comes at a cost. DOE's report is a clear indication that more and more people are signing up for long-term income-based repayment plans that stretch out their repayment period for as long as 20 to 25 years.  According to DOE, five million people are in IDRs now, and DOE hopes to enroll 2 million more by the end of 2017. Clearly, long-term repayment plans has become DOE's number one strategy for dealing with rising student-debt loads.

What's wrong with IDRs? Four things.

Growing Loan Balances. First, as I have said many times, most people in IDRs are making payments based on a percentage of their income, not the amount of their debt; and most people's payments are not large enough to cover accruing interest on their loan balances. Thus, for almost everyone in a 20- or a 25-year repayment plan, loan balances are going up, not down.

This was starkly illustrated by a recent Brookings Institution report. According to a paper published for Brookings by Looney and Yannelis, a majority of borrowers (57 percent) saw their loan balances go up two years after beginning the repayment period on their loans. For students who borrowed to attend for-profit instiutions, almost three out of four (74 percent) saw their loan balances grow two years after entering the repayment phase

Reduced Incentives for Colleges to Rein in Tuition Costs.  As more and more borrowers elect to join IDRs, the colleges know that tuition prices becomes less important to students.Whether students borrow $25,000 to attend college or $50,000, their payment will be the same.

In fact, some IDRs actually may act as an inverse incentive for students to obtain more postsecondary education than they need.  I have several doctoral students who are collecting multiple graduate degrees. I suspect they are enrolled in the 10-year public-service loan forgiveness plan, the government's most generous IDR. Since monthly loan payments are based on income and not the amount borrowed, I think some people have figured out that it makes economic sense to prolong their studies.

Psychological Costs of Long-Term Repayment Plans. Third, there are psychological costs when people sign up for repayment plans that can stretch over a quarter of a century, a cost that some bankruptcy courts have noted. And these psychological costs are undoubtedly higher for people who sign up for IDRs in mid-life. Brenda Butler, for example, who lost her adversary proceeding in January of this year, signed up for a 25-year income-based repayment plan when she was in her early 40s, after struggling to pay back her student loans for 20 years. As the court noted in Butler's case, her loan obligations will cease in 2037--42 years after she graduated from college. That's got to be depressing.

A Drag on Consumer Spending. Finally, people who are making loan payments for 20 years have less disposable income to buy a home or a car, to marry, to have children, and to save for their retirement.  In fact, in the Abney case decided in late 2015, a bankruptcy court in Missouri rejected DOE's argument that a 44-year old truck driver should enter a long-term repayment plan to service loans he took out years ago for a college education he never completed.

As the court pointed out, Mr. Abney was a truck driver who was not likely to see his income increase markedly. Forcing him into a long-term repayment plan would diminish his ability to save for retirement or even to buy a car.

"It Hurts So Much To Face Reality"

As Robert Duvall sang in the movie Tender Mercies (the best contemporary western movie of all time), "it hurts so much to face reality."

Without a doubt, DOE is refusing to face reality by huckstering college-loan debtors into long-term student-loan repayment plans. DOE has adopted this strategy to keep student-loan defaults down, but IDRs do not relieve the burden of indebtendess for millions of student borrowers. Lowering monthly loan payments by stretching out the repayent period makes rising tuition more palatable, but it does nothing to check the rising cost of a college education--which has spun out of control.

In short, IDRs are creating a modern class of sharecroppers, whereby millions of people pay a percentage of their incomes over the majority of their working lives for the privilege of getting a crummy education from a college or university that has no incentive to keep tuition costs within the bounds of reason.

"It hurts so much to face reality."

References

Abney v. U.S. Department of Education, 540 B.R. 681 (W.D. Mo. 2015).

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

U.S. Department of Education, Education Department Announces New Data Showing FAFSA Completion by District, State. Press release, June 16, 2016. Accessible at http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/education-department-announces-new-data-showing-fafsa-completion-district-state

Small colleges and for-profits are closing at an accelerating rate: Do Not Resuscitate

Resuscitate: to bring (someone who is unconscious, not breathing, or close to death) back to a conscious or active state again.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary 

Two sectors of the higher education are under extreme stress: for-profit institutions and small liberal arts colleges. In both sectors, schools are closing or downsizing at an accelerating rate.

In the last two weeks alone, Dowling College and St. Catharine College announced they are closing. Grace University, an interdenominational school in Nebraska, is raising tuition and cutting salaries to deal with financial problems; and for-profit Brown Mackie College announced that it is closing 22 of its 26 campuses over the next few years and will not accept any new students.

These failing colleges and universities are the educational equivalent of terminally ill patients. They see death approaching, but they deal with their mortality in different ways. Some failing colleges shut down in an orderly fashion and make arrangements for their current students to complete their programs at other institutions. Others refuse to accept the inevitable and search desperately for a survival strategy.

For example, Sweet Briar College in Virginia announced it was closing more than a year ago, but new leadership and some moneyed alumni rushed in to keep it open. But this year, Sweet Briar only enrolled 24 freshmen.

Likewise, although Dowling College announced its closure, it is now trying to partner with Global University Systems, "an educational investment firm" that has multiple partnerships with universities in England, Canada and the U.S. Personally, I can't see how this new relationship will have any bearing on Dowling's future.

In my view, all these faltering for-profits and struggling private colleges should close their doors with dignity once they have explored all reasonable strategies for remaining viable  Most of them are on life support--existing from month to month on infusions of student-loan money. It is irresponsible for failing institutions to continue recruiting students when trustees and administrators know these students will be going into debt to obtain an education from a college that will be closing in the very near future.

References

Candice Ferette and John Hildebrtand. Dowling, still officially open, can award degrees over summer. Newsday, June 14, 2016. Accessible at http://www.newsday.com/long-island/education/dowling-still-officially-open-can-award-degrees-over-summer-1.11916403

Emily Nohr. Grace University will raise tuition, cut baseball and softball, reduce salaries to cope with financial problems. Omaha World-Herald, June 14, 2016.  Accessble at http://www.omaha.com/news/education/grace-university-will-raise-tuition-cut-baseball-and-softball-reduce/article_499c0d2c-325d-11e6-84e8-17b1280538f5.html

Ashley A. Smith. Decreases in enrollment lead to Brown Mackie closing. Inside Higher Ed, June 15, 2016.  Accessible at https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/06/15/decreases-enrollment-lead-brown-mackie-closing

Another Small Private Closes Its Doors. Inside Higher Ed, June 1, 2016. Accesible at https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2016/06/01/another-small-private-closes-its-doors-dowling-college?utm_source=Inside+Higher+Ed&utm_campaign=a0fafeb056-DNU20160601&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1fcbc04421-a0fafeb056-198564813

Paul Fain. The Department and St. Catharine.  Inside Higher Ed, June 2, 2016. Accessible at https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/06/02/small-private-college-closes-blames-education-department-sanction?utm_source=Inside+Higher+Ed&utm_campaign=3d1c6eed79-DNU20160602&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1fcbc04421-3d1c6eed79-198565653

Rick Seltzer. Sweet Briar falls short of initial enrollment target, but leaders remain optimistic. Inside Higher Ed. May 5, 2016. Accessible at https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/05/05/sweet-briar-falls-short-initial-enrollment-target-leaders-remain-optimistic

Kellie Woodhouse. Closures to Triple. Inside Higher Education, September 28, 2015. Accessile at https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/09/28/moodys-predicts-college-closures-triple-2017

Lee Gardner. Where Does the Regional State University Go From Here? Partners 4 Affordable Excellence. May 22, 2016http://partners4edu.org/regional-state-university-go/