• Comment (7)

For-Profit Colleges Must Crack Down on Predatory Practices

May 7, 2012 RSS Feed Print

Former Rep. Steve Gunderson, president and CEO of the Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities, recently wrote a letter to U.S. News to rebut my previous posts about for-profit colleges.

This was on the heels of President Obama's call for a crackdown on predatory  practices on military families by the for-profits—his "know before you owe" plan.

I would like to make one thing very clear: My columns and my statements are not a wholesale condemnation of all these schools or all these programs. Long-distance learning and online courses are here to stay. This is not, as Mr. Gunderson characterized it, a "witch hunt."

[See the U.S. News rankins of the best colleges.]

This is about the facts accompanying a remarkable growth in these for-profits and the remarkable cost to the taxpayers that they represent. I find it odd that a strong fiscal conservative Republican such as Mr. Gunderson and his party's presumed presidential nominee, former Gov. Mitt Romney, would be advocating that billions be spent on what has been shown too often to be fraudulent and totally ineffective education programs.

Here are the facts that Mr. Gunderson did not refute:

FACT: This has become a $30 billion industry, virtually all of the money coming from federal loans and grants. A few years ago, the numbers were $4 billion in Pell grants and $20 billion in loans plus the G.I. Bill. Student numbers have grown from 365,000 to 1.8 million in just a few years.

FACT:  According to the Department of Education, (as reported in The Washington Times), 26 percent of all student loan money and 46 percent of all student loan dollars in default come from for-profit programs, despite the fact they account for just 12 percent of college students.

FACT:  These schools aren't cheap—despite the lack of campuses or classrooms or counseling or even much personal interaction with faculty members. Again, according to the Education Department, (as reported in USA Today), for-profits cost on average $30,900 per year compared to public colleges at $15,600 and private, non-profits at $26,600.

FACT: According to a U.S. Senate report, 2 million students withdrew from the large for-profits in a three-year period, and of those who enrolled in the 10 largest chains in 2008-2009, 54 percent had withdrawn by the summer of 2010.

FACT:  Slick TV ads and bounty-paid marketers swallowed up $3.7 billion last year. It is taxpayer money—you're paying for it!  The Apollo group, which runs the University of Phoenix, spent $377 million on advertising, more that Apple. (The 15 largest for-profits spent 23 percent of their operating costs on marketing according to a Senate report.)

[Students at For-Profit Colleges Earn Less, Study Says]

FACT: Not enough of this taxpayer money is going to educate students—for-profits devote less than one third of the money that public institutions do to instruction. It is even less than one fifth of what private non-profit institutions provide (Department of Education). Those are huge and disturbing gaps.

FACT: This has become big business. Taxpayer money has lined the pockets of millionaires—the top executives of the top 15 for-profit colleges pulled in $2 billion last year. The president of Strayer University was awarded a package of $41.9 million!

FACT:  As the New York Times reported last December, these for-profits spent $16 million dollars on lobbyists to confront the Obama administration, members of Congress like Sens. Tom Harkin and Dick Durbin, and many others, to prevent any legislation.  Instead of "cleaning house" the for-profits sought to "clean up" by keeping those federal dollars rolling in. Courageous members Harkin and Durbin have stood their ground against the onslaught.

Finally, there is the issue that President Obama and Holly Petraeus and many others have highlighted: the predatory approach these for-profits have utilized when dealing with our veterans. We are talking about 700,000 veterans with education benefits, according to the Chronicle of Higher Education. Last year, of the $4.65 billion spent under the G.I. Bill, one-third, or $1.65 billion, went to for-profits.

[See pictures of the first lady with military families.]

Recruiters have entered hospitals signing up vets with severe brain injuries, as PBS and Holly Petraeus documented at Camp Lejeune, N.C.--no counseling, no explanation of what is involved, just sign here, it is free money.

The incentive for these for-profits is not just to sign up more students but it is to use the loophole in the 90-10 rule which requires these schools to at least have 10 percent of their funds not from the taxpayers, not from Title IV education funds. The G.I. Bill, even though it is government money, is not technically Title IV, so it counts toward the for-profits 10 percent requirement. 

To quote Holly Petraeus: "This gives for-profit colleges an incentive to see service members as nothing more that dollar signs in uniform, and to use aggressive marketing to draw them in."

This has gotten seriously out of control and President Obama was right to put the brakes on these practices.

[Read the U.S. News debate: Should the Lower Interest Rate on Stafford Loans Be Extended?]

We are wasting taxpayer dollars, short changing those who desperately need training and college, and putting money in the pockets of those who believe there is a quick buck to be made.

It is time for groups like Mr. Gunderson's to get a handle on his own industry and crack down, and not to deny the disturbing trend or sweep it under the rug as only "a few bad apples." It isn't about the lobbyists and the big profits, it is about the students and their futures.

When state and community colleges are facing devastating cut backs, private colleges are feeling the squeeze, and fewer and fewer families believe they can afford college, isn't it better to ensure that for-profits are part of the solution, not part of the problem?

Corrected on 05/07/2012: An earlier version of this blog post misstated the amount of money spent last year under the G.I. bill. Last year, $4.65 billion was spent.

Tags:
student loans,
colleges,
education

Reader Comments Read all comments (7)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

I attended a "non-profit" private university for a graduate degree. I soon came to realize that their practices are similar, if not worse, than the for-profits, because they are more covert in their shady lending practices. They are basically fake non-profits, that just spend the money they make,pay themselves a pretty penny to remain on non-profit status, and rake in government loan money to enroll students who have no business in graduate school, let alone high school. The doctorate programs are in some ways the worst, they are 4+ years of high tuition income, that places huge burdens on their graduates to repay. Sure, not all non-profits Universities are bad, but I would say that the ones that are bad are worse. For example, my program convinced students that 25000K a year plus living expenses (in grad plus and fed loans) was a good deal, for a school in an office suite with no services. I suppose what I am trying to say is that there needs to be better quality assurance checks on schools, not only for-profits, but all schools. They should have to prove that their degrees and graduates have a better than average chance of repaying loans in a timely manner based on a public monetary evaluation of the degrees granted. Many programs (non-profits) have car salesman like recruitments, I later found out that my program accepted 75% or more of applicants for doctorate program (of course the programs are mandated to report this data to public). Compare this to about 5% accepted to a UC doctorate program. This should be outlawed because students get in, are not bright enough to finish, and schools profit all along the way, or worse, in my program where faculty would essentially do the dissertations for students, to keep their enrollment quota's up. I am embarrassed, broke, and without a recognized degree with earning power, because I had to find out the hard way what these schools are doing. Enough is enough, we need to standardize outcome data for each program, including graduate earnings and employment numbers in their fields, and force schools to justify costs in annual reports viewable by the public.

Just my thoughts on the matters

-Mike

Mike of CA 5:17AM October 20, 2012

FACT: Even the most cursory examination of data from the Center for Responsive Politics reveals that many top nonprofit universities outspent the most vilified for-profits during this period. The Apollo Group, for example, doesn't even crack the top seven in higher education lobbying spending when nonprofits are included. All in all, thirteen NON PROFIT institutions spent more than $1 million in lobbying from 2010-2011, seven of whom were public systems funded with state tax dollars. The biggest spender during this period was the State University of New York (SUNY) system, clocking in with a cool $1.7 million in 2010 alone - outspending industrial leaders like Sunoco ($1.12 million), the Motion Picture Association of America ($1.66 million), and Continental Airlines ($1.65 million). The SUNY system retains the well-known firm Akin Gump to do much of its D.C. lobbying, the same guys that represent Dow Chemical, Shell Oil, and Boeing. If we go back to 2008, the picture becomes even clearer. Of the twenty higher education organizations with the highest lobbying totals, just two are for-profit colleges. Ten are public university systems, with SUNY ($6.05 million), the University of Texas ($3.52 million), and the University of Colorado ($3.07 million) topping the list. Smaller, prestigious nonprofit universities like Boston University ($3.6 million) and Johns Hopkins ($3.46 million) more thaWith all eyes on for-profits, we lose sight of the fact that the weaknesses in our higher education system are not unique to a particular tax status.

The for-profits didn't invent higher education lobbying. They simply learned from the best: America's beloved public and nonprofit universitiesn hold their own with the large public systems.

Mike Cameron of AK 10:58PM May 09, 2012

I guess NO MORE do STUDENTS sign contracts to get student loans AND PROMISE TO PAY. SURELY student credit record is still ruined if in default. STUDENTS don't TACK ON other expenses such as living expenses, cars, etc.. Surprised when bill comes due even if you don't graduate or picked major NOT HOT in the market place. Have grades to attract employers.

For some time student loans in default has been MAJOR ISSUE. Paying loan has nothing to do with your ability to secure a job. Collateral needed for these loans to insure pay back in the future must be looked at. Too many college student are not mature.

Recessions are a common occurrence. On link was mentioned bailing out Wall Street. Most TARP LOANS paid back WITH HIGH INTEREST. Not forgiven loans...

Bill Hedges of MO 6:03PM May 08, 2012

Peter Fenn

Peter Fenn

Peter Fenn is a Democratic political strategist and head of Fenn Communications, one of the nation's leading political and public affairs media firms. Fenn Communications has worked in over 300 campaigns, from presidential to mayoral, and has represented a number of Fortune 500 companies. Fenn is also an adjunct professor at George Washington University's Graduate School of Political Management. Follow him on Twitter @peterhfenn.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

An End to the NRA’s Angry Swagger

Polls show that overwhelming majorities of Americans, and even of NRA members, favor universal background checks.

Mary Kate Cary

Washington’s Toxic Stew

President Obama's burgeoning problems affect more than this week’s three scandals.

Latest Videos

advertisement