Scapegoating For-Profit Colleges

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 27, 2010 8:32 PM GMT
    Wall Street Journal Opinion Section, August 27, 2010

    Byline: Obama tees up another private industry for punishment

    This is in the print and online editions today. A good read.

    Not including the article for copyright concerns, but if you subscribe, this is a good read about yet another private sector industry being targeted by this administration.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 27, 2010 9:12 PM GMT
    WHY DOES OBAMA HATE AMERICA?

    It's interesting to see that the desire to bash Obama is so much stronger than reducing government spending, which sort of puts the lie to that as something important.

    Let's see. School X charges significantly more than it needs to, and students get that money from federally insured loans. School X gets the money, the students don't get the promised jobs, School X keeps their money, taxpayers foot the bill.

    Oh, but it's OK because the school pays taxes on that significant amount of money they charged..... but wait, they are still only paying a small percentage of the taxpayer money they got, so we're still stuck with difference.

    So Obama says: if you overcharge and underdeliver, we are not going to give your students loans. It is time for this scam to end.

    But the WSJ and the Obamahaters scream NO NO NO OBAMA HATES PRIVATE SCHOOLS!

    So right, I'm a big meanie for pointing out that apparently there's no problem with being a total hypocrite as long as you make Obama look bad? And that the people who are doing this are not concerned about the students, or taxpayer money, they are only concerned with getting back in power. Which makes them bad for this country.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 27, 2010 9:15 PM GMT
    gregography said"(T)here's no problem with being a total hypocrite as long as you make Obama look bad."



    I'm pretty sure that's going to be in the GOP's 2012 platform.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 27, 2010 9:36 PM GMT
    The tuitions are often more expensive than other schools because the schools do not receive state aid and must pay taxes.

    The penalty for students not getting jobs is laughable. Given the unemployment rate, many recent grads from all types of colleges and universities should be holding their schools accountable.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 27, 2010 9:43 PM GMT
    socalfitness saidThe tuitions are often more expensive than other schools because the schools do not receive state aid and must pay taxes.

    The penalty for students not getting jobs is laughable. Given the unemployment rate, many recent grads from all types of colleges and universities should be holding their schools accountable.


    If you did a simple web search you would see that this problem predates the current recession. And if the problem was widespread then why such a wide spread between these schools and other schools? Especially when these are vocational schools, not liberal arts schools.

    It's a scam. There have been stories of homeless people being rounded up, enrolled, and given loans. Guess what? Right.

    It's another made-up controversy. Obama is protecting your precious tax dollars, the ones you don't want to pay, and now you're jumping on him for doing it.

    It's a pretty transparent move by the members of the party of NO. That you support it is another strike against your claims of objective independence. Really, who do you think is stupid enough to really believe this crap?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 27, 2010 9:50 PM GMT
    The students are a greater at-risk demographic. Those able to read the piece will get a more complete picture without the typical liberal histrionics included.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 27, 2010 9:55 PM GMT
    socalfitness saidThe students are a greater at-risk demographic. Those able to read the piece will get a more complete picture without the typical liberal histrionics included.


    Of course, you dismiss using an ad-hominum argument rather than having anything substantial to come back with. Yet again, typical. The article, like much of what the WSJ opinion section contains, and far more bias-driven than fact-driven. I really enjoy those times when the news section of the paper contradicts what's in the opinion section.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 27, 2010 10:08 PM GMT
    America is full of private colleges---Harvard, Princeton, etc---that demonstrate the power of the idea of private non-profit universities. An idea, incidentally, that much of the rest of the world has still to learn.

    But we're not talking about those. We're talking about a bunch of institutions some of which have used quite fraudulent procedures to enroll students into courses that they know the students will never be able to repay. Since it is generally not possible to default on student loans, this causes all manner of further problems.

    It's clear that there need to be some external standards checks to ensure that students are not being defrauded.

    Finally, anyone who thinks of education as an industry ought to be shot (metaphorically, of course).

    And "liberal histrionics", really?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 28, 2010 2:04 AM GMT
    The article edited out the full quote from Duncan which really reads as follows:

    "Some proprietary schools have profited and prospered but their students haven't, and this is a disservice to students and to taxpayers," Education Secretary Arne Duncan said in a briefing with reporters. "And it undermines the valuable work, the extraordinarily important work, being done by the for-profit industry as a whole."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 28, 2010 2:43 AM GMT
    meninlove said The article edited out the full quote from Duncan which really reads as follows:

    "Some proprietary schools have profited and prospered but their students haven't, and this is a disservice to students and to taxpayers," Education Secretary Arne Duncan said in a briefing with reporters. "And it undermines the valuable work, the extraordinarily important work, being done by the for-profit industry as a whole."


    Of course they did because they are fundamentally dishonest.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 28, 2010 2:45 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    meninlove said The article edited out the full quote from Duncan which really reads as follows:

    "Some proprietary schools have profited and prospered but their students haven't, and this is a disservice to students and to taxpayers,"


    Hmmmm.... Sounds like he's describing the NEA and public schools!


    A ridiculous comparison in response to a ridiculous piece posted by someone who's dislike for Obama is so ridiculous that he completely contradicts his usual fiscal responsibility stance to argue against the federal government saving tax dollars.

    Partisans also accused Obama of attacking industry when he got rid of the middle men in federal student loans, despite the fact that it would allow more loans to more students while saving tax dollars.

    And, the original posters subsequent responses have wreaked of near racism and classism.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 28, 2010 3:12 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 said
    meninlove said



    And, the original posters subsequent responses have wreaked of near racism and classism.

    Are you referring to this?: The students are a greater at-risk demographic.

    From the article:

    Students at for-profit schools are also more likely to be low-income, racial minorities, single parents, high school dropouts with GEDs, or first-generation college students without parents who can help pay the tuition bill. Studies that control for this "at-risk" student demographic have found that loan default rates at career colleges are comparable to those found at community colleges and historically black schools; neither of the latter would be subject to the new rules.

    So you believe this wreaked of near racism and classism? You are becoming more shrill as we get closer to the election.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 28, 2010 3:43 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    Partisans also accused Obama of attacking industry when he got rid of the middle men in federal student loans, despite the fact that it would allow more loans to more students while saving tax dollars.


    And destroying a perfectly legitimate, legal industry.

    Isn't it nice when the government comes in and destroys an entire industry with just one signature on a piece of paper?


    Dude, either you want lower taxes or you want wasteful spending. The middle-men in the student loan industry were making profits off federal dollars while assuming none of the risk inherent in making loans.

    It wasn't a "legitimate, legal" industry. It was fleecing the American people. If the banks want to make loans with their money, they are free to do so and this change in law has no effect on them doing so.

    Again, this is something you SHOULD support because it means better, more efficient programs that will give tax payers more bang for our buck.

    Same thing with military contractors. Why should we pay Halliburton 10 times for a product or service that our military can do for itself better and cheaper.

    The only position you can take on these two things that is not STUNNINGLY hypocritical, is to say that the federal government shouldn't make loans. But to argue for this "industry" to be spared the market forces you so cherish makes you look partisan and silly.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 28, 2010 3:48 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 said
    meninlove said



    And, the original posters subsequent responses have wreaked of near racism and classism.

    Are you referring to this?: The students are a greater at-risk demographic.

    From the article:

    Students at for-profit schools are also more likely to be low-income, racial minorities, single parents, high school dropouts with GEDs, or first-generation college students without parents who can help pay the tuition bill. Studies that control for this "at-risk" student demographic have found that loan default rates at career colleges are comparable to those found at community colleges and historically black schools; neither of the latter would be subject to the new rules.

    So you believe this wreaked of near racism and classism? You are becoming more shrill as we get closer to the election.


    Yes that would be it. You're basically justifying these "colleges" right to fleece poor students and students of color because they are at "greater risk" (re: poor and black) than other students. If anything, these "colleges" should be subject to higher scrutiny given the historic racism and classism of our education system.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 28, 2010 4:08 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 said
    meninlove said



    And, the original posters subsequent responses have wreaked of near racism and classism.

    Are you referring to this?: The students are a greater at-risk demographic.

    From the article:

    Students at for-profit schools are also more likely to be low-income, racial minorities, single parents, high school dropouts with GEDs, or first-generation college students without parents who can help pay the tuition bill. Studies that control for this "at-risk" student demographic have found that loan default rates at career colleges are comparable to those found at community colleges and historically black schools; neither of the latter would be subject to the new rules.

    So you believe this wreaked of near racism and classism? You are becoming more shrill as we get closer to the election.


    Yes that would be it. You're basically justifying these "colleges" right to fleece poor students and students of color because they are at "greater risk" (re: poor and black) than other students. If anything, these "colleges" should be subject to higher scrutiny given the historic racism and classism of our education system.

    OK, I'm fine with the clarification. I thought you were suggesting my use of the term "at-risk demographic" was racist, while I think your point is you take issue with the underlying policy. If that is the intent of your comment, that's fine. We don't need to go into basis for business costs driven by risk.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 28, 2010 9:26 AM GMT
    My colleague is still paying his educational loans from school...and he's turning 50 this year!
    SBIsn't it nice when the government comes in and destroys an entire industry with just one signature on a piece of paper?

    An aside: If we would be so lucky with the tobacco industry...
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14310

    Aug 28, 2010 2:49 PM GMT
    I went to ITT Tech which is of those "for profit colleges" for three quarters parttime evenings and I could not do the night school thing anymore because of dependence on a crappy public transit system and ITT Tech's outer suburban location plus being full time employed during the day. Since I resigned in late June, I have recieved info in the mail about my student loans and it is almost 15,000.00. Starting next year, I have to start paying back these excessive loans, I might have no other choice but to possibly default since I don't have that kind of money. These for profit colleges have an aggressive sales staff that promise you the world when you graduate and that night school is fun. What a crock of shit. A good, honest industry, I don't think so Mr. Southbeach.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 28, 2010 3:02 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    jprichva saidI work for one of the universities

    YOU actually WORK?

    I'm shocked you were able to pull the wool over the interviewer's eyes and convince him/her that you are a team player with a pleasant personality.

    My sympathies go out to your co-workers.


    jprichva saidI work in admissions


    Yikes!

    It's one thing having adult co-workers have to see that "face" of yours, but young students? That's just too much to bear..... icon_eek.gif



    SB you are amusing at best. If you only knew what Jeff was like..well you won't because he presents the aspects he does to you as a mirror of yourself.

    (watch this everyone, SB won't get this either)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 28, 2010 3:43 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    jprichva saidI work for one of the universities

    YOU actually WORK?

    I'm shocked you were able to pull the wool over the interviewer's eyes and convince him/her that you are a team player with a pleasant personality.

    My sympathies go out to your co-workers.


    jprichva saidI work in admissions


    Yikes!

    It's one thing having adult co-workers have to see that "face" of yours, but young students? That's just too much to bear..... icon_eek.gif


    Fuck you, you obnoxious little asshole.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 28, 2010 4:29 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    roadbikeRob saidA good, honest industry, I don't think so Mr. Southbeach.


    I was referring to the banks that were able to make student loans... until Leader Obama sent them the way of the buggy whip industry.


    Please explain why, as someone who constantly rails against gov't waste, the tax payees should fund banks profiting from federal student loans.

    The law does not prevent banks from lending money, it simply removes them as unnecessary middlemen from them federal lending program.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 28, 2010 4:40 PM GMT
    OtterJoq saidFuck you, you obnoxious little asshole.


    He´s hardly "little"

    301322083_38acc1b2da.jpg?v=0
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 28, 2010 4:48 PM GMT
    Lostboy said
    OtterJoq saidFuck you, you obnoxious little asshole.


    He´s hardly "little"

    301322083_38acc1b2da.jpg?v=0


    Point taken. Think he uses those seatbelt extenders in the cockpit?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 28, 2010 4:58 PM GMT
    I´m not saying he´s fat.










    Just kinda like he´s made of dough

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 28, 2010 5:01 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Lostboy said
    OtterJoq saidFuck you, you obnoxious little asshole.


    He´s hardly "little"

    301322083_38acc1b2da.jpg?v=0

    And why do you think that cancer patient look makes you cool?


    Lostboy is a hottie; look at those abs!

    Sorry, Fagmire...wrong again.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 28, 2010 5:04 PM GMT
    OtterJoq said
    southbeach1500 said
    And why do you think that cancer patient look makes you cool?

    .


    Really? Taking a dead horse and flogging it explains some of your politics. HINT: making fun of cancer survivors makes you look like a cunt.

    call_you_cunt.jpg