For years, regulators and the Obama administration have been trying to reign in all of the abuses of for-profit colleges. In a nutshell, these colleges make big promises to students and then encourage them to take out big student loans. The colleges get paid, but then when students can’t get the type of jobs they were promised (or just drop out), they’re stuck with the student debt and there’s zero risk for the colleges. These for-profit colleges have lower graduation rates and much higher student-debt default rates than traditional colleges.

Read the rest of this entry »

We’ve been highlighting some of the troubling news stories about for-profit college scams, and we’ve welcomed the notion of new rules governing the industry.

The new rules from the Obama administration are out, but they’ve been scaled back a bit from the initial proposed rules.

The Obama administration on Thursday issued a series of highly anticipated regulations aimed at cracking down on for-profit colleges and other career training programs that leave students saddled with unmanageable debts and contribute to an unequal share of federal student loan defaults.

The final rules issued by the Department of Education, however, are significantly less stringent than a draft version released last year, giving college programs an additional three years to come in line before possibly losing access to lucrative federal student aid dollars. The changes come after an unprecedented lobbying and campaign finance offensive over the past year by the for-profit college industry, which derives a vast majority of revenues from federal student loan and grant programs and has sought to protect that income by gaining influence in Washington.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan said the changes came after discussion with “lots and lots of different folks,” not just the industry, and he pointed out that the colleges were not unanimous in their suggestions for changes.

“What we really wanted to do was give people a chance to reform … this was not about ‘gotcha,'” Duncan said. “We tried to be very thoughtful, very reasonable and give people every opportunity to succeed, but be very clear where we wouldn’t permit ongoing failure.”

The intense lobbying campaign helped the industry, as the rules are weaker. You can check the article for the details. Lobbyist hacks like Lanny Davis did their job.

That said, this is a decent first step. It’s appropriate that the schools have a time frame to remedy problems, and this should help weed out the worst abuses.

Meanwhile, 10 states have opened a joint probe to look into the marketing practices of for-profit colleges, so we might yet see some interesting developments in this area.

The key here is you have to do your research before enrolling in one of these schools and taking on a mound of student debt.

Some Democrats and Republicans are trying to scuttle attempts by the Obama administration to impose new rules on for-profit colleges to prevent abuses against students to rack up huge debt for dubious degrees.

The Department of Education is tired of federally subsidized student loans going to shady for-profit colleges that have poor track records of getting the students who do graduates good work — often leaving them stuck with mountains of debt. To curb this phenomenon, the agency has been moving along with a new regulation they call the “Gainful Employment” rule.

Under “Gainful Employment” rules, for profit schools would have to show that their students can find work without getting stuck with unreasonable debt in order to qualify for federal loans.

But behind the scenes, a bipartisan bloc of House members see things differently. They say the rule would reach too far and clamp down on institutions that do a decent job of educating and preparing students. But they want to tie the Department of Education’s hands completely, and block the funds they’d need to implement the rules at all.

Fortunately, many members of Congress are with the administration on this, and Obama could veto any bill with this language.

Even during tough economic times, colleges and universities have the means to tap into funds that have been reserved for a “rainy day.” Take Ohio State University, for example. Faced with the possibility of decreased enrollment due to lack of financial aid to many students, Ohio State University tapped into the school’s emergency fund back in 2008 to move roughly $1 million into a program that provides students with emergency short-term loans. The loan amounts ranged from $100 up to $1,000. OSU took it’s mission to help young people pursue their dreams and earn a degree a step further by guaranteeing that tuition would not be raised midway through the 2008-2009 school year. The university went on to promise that if tuition rose for the 2009-2010 school year, financial aid would increase in lockstep.

Ohio State University is not alone in its quest to provide financially strapped students with emergency University backed loans. Universities currently loan more than $1.5 billion out of the $66 billion in new federal student loans, to students. As of 2006, more than 157 participated in School as Lender (SAL) programs. Among the more than 157 participating SAL schools are:

• Akron University
• Bowling Green State University
• Chicago School of Professional Psychology
• Des Moines University
• DeVry University
• Emory University
• Loyola University of Chicago
• New York Institute of Technology
• Nova Southeastern University
• Palmer College of Chiropractic
• Parker College of Chiropractic
• Southern Methodist University
• St. Louis University
• Touro College
• Tufts University
• University of Arizona
• University of Illinois
• University of Nebraska
• University of Phoenix
• Walden University
• Widener University in Pennsylvania

While roughly a third of schools use institutional funds to finance student loans, other schools partner with a commercial or nonprofit lending institution to establish a line of credit. Once the line of credit is established, the schools offer loans directly to graduate, law, and medical students, often placing themselves on the list of lenders the school recommends. The schools hold the loans for a certain period of time, typically two to three months after the money has been fully disbursed to the students/borrowers. During that time, the school collects interest, plus the government subsidies provided to lenders in the federally guaranteed student-loan program. The schools then sell the portfolio back to the banks for the agreed-upon premium.

 Status of the School as Lender Program

While many universities have money for loans from funds taken directly from their own savings, universities that have partnered with a commercial or nonprofit lending institution to establish a line of credit might be in trouble. For starters, schools acting as lenders are constantly being scrutinized in order to help protect students and borrowers against unscrupulous practices. And although $1.5 billion is a small slice of the more than $66 billion in new federal student loans, the federal government doesn’t want the SAL program to undercut federal student loan programs. Schools operating as lenders in the Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP) should keep in mind that current federal regulations require guarantors to conduct reviews of certain schools that act as lenders. According to federal regulations 34CFR 682.401(c), guarantors must conduct program reviews of lenders that meet at least one of the following criteria:

• The volume of FFELP loans made or held by the lender and guaranteed by the guarantor equaled at least 2 percent of the total loans guaranteed by that guarantor in the preceding year.
• The lender is one of the 10-largest lenders of loans guaranteed by that guarantor in that year.
• The lender’s FFELP volume was at least $10 million in the most-recent fiscal year.

Currently, SAL programs are still in place, but according to Part B, Section 436 of the Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP), the Senate amendment terminates authority for the school as lender program, effective June 30, 2012.

We’ve done a number of posts about for-profit college scams, so we aren’t too surprised by the terrible graduation rates reported in a new study.

For-profit colleges graduated an average of 22 percent of their students in 2008, according to a new report from Education Trust.

That average palls in comparison to bachelor’s-seeking graduation rates at public and private non-profit colleges and universities for the same year, which averaged 55 percent and 65 percent, respectively.

The report, titled “Supbrime Opportunity” (PDF) also reveals that for-profit colleges increased their enrollment by 236 percent from 1998 to 2009.

The median debt of for-profit college graduates — $31,190 — far outpaces that of private non-profit college graduates, which stands at $17,040, and is more than triple the median debt for those from public colleges, which is $7,960.

The government has helped to create this monster with easy access to student loans for these institutions, who now have the incentive to accept as many students as possible. Then they make money regardless of whether they provide value to their students.

Fortunately, the Obama administration has proposed new rules to make it more difficult for many of these for-profit colleges to waste taxpayer dollars.