ThinkProgress Logo

Economy

Education

Five Republican Senators Join Effort To Block For-Profit College Regulations

The Obama administration has been trying to implement new regulations governing the for-profit college industry — which makes the vast majority of its revenue from the taxpayer while leaving scores of students crippled with debt and bleak job prospects — but has run into staunch opposition in the House. House Education Committee Chairman John Kline (R-MN), after receiving substantial donations from the for-profit college industry, has pledged that the new regulations won’t come online.

The House actually used the spending bill that it passed last month to deny funding to the Education Department for implementing the new regulations. And now the House has some allies in the Senate, as Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID) — joined by Sens. Tom Coburn (R-OK), Jim DeMint (R-SC), Ron Johnson (R-WI), and Mike Lee (R-UT) — has introduced legislation blocking the new regulations. Here’s how Risch described his effort, which he’s calling the “Education for All Act“:

The ‘gainful employment’ rules could deny hundreds of thousands of students access to the training and skills development they need to secure a job in today’s troubled economy. It would particularly have a negative impact on the health field where nearly half of all workers are educated at proprietary institutions,” said Risch. “It is simply irresponsible for the government to throw roadblocks in front of students and institutions at a time when job creation in America should be the administration’s number one priority.

For one thing, Risch is parroting the for-profit industry’s claims about the number of health care workers it trains, even though those claims don’t stand up to scrutiny. And as Julie Margetta Morgan noted this morning, gainful employment regulations — which would cause higher education programs to lose their access to public money if their graduates fail to meet a certain debt-to-income ratio or have high rates of student loan default — would not deny federal aid to students. They would, instead, ensure that taxpayers don’t continue to throw money at programs that leave students ill-served.

Currently, just 11 percent of higher education students in the country attend for-profit schools, yet they account for 26 percent of federal student loans and 44 percent of student loan defaults. The latest data shows that 25 percent of for-profit college students default on their student loans within three years. The schools often use misleading and intimidating tactics to recruit students, many of whom would be better served, both financially and with regard to job prospects, if they attended a community college.

At the same time, for-profits schools make up to 90 percent of their revenue from the federal government, through the Pell Grants, Stafford Loans, and other federal assistance used by their students. For instance, 91.5 percent of Kaplan University’s revenue comes from the government, along with 88 percent revenue at the University of Phoenix. Executives at the schools make huge salaries, with Strayer University’s CEO pulling in $41 million in 2009.

A former for-profit school chief, writing at Higher Ed Watch, admitted that the schools use “very questionable” practices, and explained why the sector “must change its ways.” But the for-profit industry has been intensely lobbying to preserve its taxpayer largesse, and Republicans in both chambers of Congress seem more than willing to play along.

For more information, read our resport, “For-Profits, Not Students.”

Boehner: House Republicans Will Cut Entitlements, We Just Won’t Explain How

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal that was published today, Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) explained that House Republicans, when they unveil their 2012 budget, plan to include cuts to so-called entitlement programs — Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare. But in a moment reminiscent of Republican promises to cut spending while not naming any specific spending cuts, Boehner said that the Republican budget won’t actually include specifics for how to achieve those entitlement cuts:

House Speaker John Boehner said Thursday that he’s determined to offer a budget this spring that curbs Social Security and Medicare, despite the political risks, and that Republicans will try to persuade voters that sacrifices are needed…Mr. Boehner made it clear the Republicans are not themselves offering a detailed plan anytime soon. Rather, the budget is likely to contain cost containment goals, but no specific ideas on how to achieve them.

But Boehner had no qualms about laying out specific entitlement cuts back in June, when he said (in remarks he later attempted to walk back) that the retirement age should be increased to 70:

“We’re all living a lot longer than anyone ever expected,” Boehner said in a meeting with the editors of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. “And I think that raising the retirement age — going out 20 years, so you’re not affecting anyone close to retirement — and eventually getting the retirement age to 70 is a step that needs to be taken.

Boehner’s justification for this regressive cut to Social Security is based on the faulty premise that America’s life-expectancy is increasing (when, in reality, its only increasing for upper-class Americans who don’t work in debilitating, labor-intensive jobs). And let’s not forget, Boehner demagogued the Affordable Care Act for its provisions slowing the growth of Medicare, saying that the “government takeover of health care bill would cut seniors’ Medicare benefits by $500 billion.”

A New NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released yesterday “suggests Republicans significantly overestimated the public’s eagerness to tackle the federal deficit by cutting programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.” 77 percent of respondents said that cuts to Social Security are unacceptable, while 76 said the same for Medicare and 67 for Medicaid. So it seems the path that Boehner has chosen is to assert that cuts will occur, score those savings in the House Republican budget, but not actually explain what those cuts would mean in practical terms.

Lobbyist Group For American Oil Companies Opposes Obama’s Sanctions On Libya

Last week, CAP’s John Norris and Sarah Margon suggested that President Obama respond to the crisis in Libya by engaging Libyan business leaders to convince them that leader Muammar Qaddafi “is a liability they can no longer afford” and since Libya is Africa’s largest oil producing country, a good place to start would be the oil industry:

One doesn’t normally look to oil companies to do the right thing. But they now have an enormous vested interest in helping push Qaddafi out. Libya has Africa’s largest crude oil reserves and the uncertainty in that country has already started to rattle markets. If Qaddafi stays on his current course and remains Libya’s leader, there will invariably be calls for an oil embargo from Libya, a proper U.N. war crimes investigation, and possibly a civil war. The oil business will be disrupted for a considerable period under all of those scenarios.

However, it doesn’t seem that U.S. oil companies are eager to do the right thing. Earlier this week, the President announced that the U.S. would unilaterally impose sanctions on Libya because the continued violence there poses an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to U.S. national security. Mother Jones reports that the business coalition USA*Engage, which reportedly lobbies for oil giants ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips, called that approach a “failed strategy.”

USA*Engage — which has also called for the U.S. to remove the travel ban and trade embargo with Cuba — feels that unilateral sanctions put U.S. business at a disadvantage. And even though the coalition called Qaddafi’s violent crackdown “profoundly depressing,” co-chair Bill Reinsch told Mother Jones that its partners, including Big Oil, play RealPolitik when operating abroad in countries like Libya:

“The reality is that the oil in all the nice countries has been exploited already, we can’t drill anymore in Norway,” Reinsch said. “I don’t detect any abiding affection for the Libyan government. In the [oil] business, you don’t have any choices.”

USA*Engage won’t officially disclose its membership and among large U.S. oil industry corporations, only Halliburton has confirmed that it is a member. Mother Jones notes that the group “has also made an effort to shield its powerful members from criticism,” which is perhaps why Reinsch tried to disuade Mother Jones from publishing the report. “I think it would be better for the story never to come out,” he said.

Education

Top Chef Contestant Misleadingly Defends For-Profit College With Abysmal Graduation Rate

Our guest blogger is Julie Margetta Morgan, a Policy Analyst with the Postsecondary Education Program at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

On Wednesday night’s episode of Top Chef, the final five contestants battled for a spot in the finals with a quick-fire challenge using only the ingredients contained in the snackbar on an Ellis Island ferry. Contestant Tiffany Derry made microwave nachos and popcorn and inexplicably claimed that it was a “bold move.” Needless to say, the judges were unimpressed.

This week, Tiffany has been making similarly inexplicable claims on Capitol Hill about for-profit colleges, since she attended one and feels the need to defend the industry from its critics. We’re not impressed, either.

Tiffany’s post on The Hill’s Congress blog makes various inaccurate statements about the gainful employment rule proposed by the Department of Education. She claims that the purpose of the rule is to limit financial aid to students:

The “Gainful Employment” rule, which is expected to be released in early March, was meant to curb the rising amount of student debt in America. It will limit federal aid to students like me who seek to attend career colleges — such as my alma mater, the Art Institute of Houston.…In an attempt to ensure that students do not take on more debt than they can handle, the Government has, in its bureaucratic haste, thrown the baby out with the bathwater by making it hardest for students who need it most to qualify for federal financial aid to attend career schools.

Really? That sounds like a terrible rule. Luckily, it’s not true — gainful employment does not in any way limit students’ access to federal aid. Rather, it asks career colleges to show that they are fit to receive such aid.

Totally misunderstanding the way the rule works is not the worst thing Tiffany does. The worst is that she uses her status as an outlier to justify the unchanged existence of a culinary program badly in need of reform. And Tiffany is not an outlier because she’s a successful chef, or a Top Chef contestant, or a reality TV star. She’s an outlier because she graduated from the Art Institute of Houston.

The Art Institute of Houston has a graduation rate of 33 percent. That means that out of every ten students who see Tiffany’s proud words about her alma mater and sign up at the Art Institute for a chance at their own Top Chef glory, seven will not even finish their program. And since the tuition at Art Institute of Houston is $17,000 per year, most of those students will wind up with significant debt that they are unable to pay. In fact, an estimated 23 percent of students at the institution default on their federal loans within three years. Read more

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up