The US-DOE's first target? "Career-training" programs and the nation's 3.4k for-profit institutions. The basic argument is that although only 11% of all students in higher education programs are enrolled in for-profit institutions, students graduating from for-profit schools are responsible for 44% of federal loan defaults.
The rule makes sense, doesn't it? Stop pouring taxpayers' $$$s into a losing proposition.
Not to the rule's detractors, as the Wall Street Journal is reporting:
- Some argue that career programs and for-profit schools and offer nontraditional students--adults who often members and former members of the U.S. military and tend to be minorities and the first people in their families to attend college--the opportunity to earn degrees in today's fastest-growing fields and to acquire the skills they need to compete successfully for jobs.
- Others maintain that career programs and for-profit schools offer flexible scheduling and degree programs that allow nontraditional students to attend school while also continuing their careers and taking care of their families.
- Still others argue the US-DOE rule will limit the ability of the poor to access educational programs.
- Taxpayer groups note that taxpayers pay ~$183/student in a for-profit college but $13k+/student attending a public college. If for-profit options become unavailable, students will necessarily seek out higher-cost public education options, leaving taxpayers to foot the bill.
Don't be fooled. If this was the stock market, the feds have realized they have been investing in a losing proposition and now need to cut their losses.
Okay. That's a wise decision. But, what "colleges" have the feds been investing in? Cosmetology schools? "Tech" academies (meaning "technician," as in dental, auto, computer technician)? In other words, so-called "colleges" that don't require applicants ot have earned a high school diploma?
In the end, the US-DOE rule isn't targeting authentic institutions of "higher education." No, the rule is targeting what's amounts to nothing more than a scam where these institutions insert the word "college" into the promotional literature to make money off of U.S. taxpayers. Just how many more cosmetologists and technicians does the nation's economy really need? The answer: Zero...as is evidencing itself in the fact that graduates aren't able to get jobs.
The most important question all of this raises? Why is the federal government loaning money to students to attend those institutions in the first place?
Let the discussion begin...
To read the Forbes' article, click on the following link:
"Obama Is Deploying 'Gainful Employment' Regulations To Threaten For-Profit Colleges."
To read the Wall Street Journal article, click on the following link:
"For-Profit College Rules Not as Tough as Proposed."