May 24, 2011
Pell Grants have lately taken center stage in the debate over the legitimacy of for-profit colleges. But regardless of whether you’re for or against for-profit education, the availability of Pell Grants themselves remains a separate issue.
Category: FAFSA, Financial Aid, Grants
April 25, 2011
Federal Pell Grants have previously been singled out for accounting for too much of the for-profit education sector’s revenue (PDF), an average of 77% at the top 5 schools. The schools as a whole accounted for roughly 10% of all higher-education enrollments, but got almost 25% of the Pell grants in 2009.
For the last year, as the heat has been turned up on the sector’s leaders, conventional wisdom dictated that the Pell grant spigot will probably be tightened.
As for-profit colleges cry about the funding restrictions and consequently increase tuition, Andrew Gillen, the CCAP research director, came up with an ingenious way to tighten Pell grants today that might even improve the career education industry’s outcomes. For him, it all comes down to incentives for both colleges and students:
(more…)
Category: Financial Aid, Grants, Higher Education
September 2, 2010
If you’re like most people, the topic of financial aid makes you want to take a baseball bat to your head. Also, if you’re like most people, you can’t avoid these two stomach-turning words if you’ve been to college or want to go back after some time in the workforce. It’s okay. I feel the same way, and even think tanks that have studied it agree:
“the primary difficulty with current federal financial aid policy is that it is poorly understood by nearly all of its constituents”
–Center for American Progress
Category: FAFSA, Financial Aid, Grants, Loans, Scholarships
August 17, 2010
A very small percentage of people who join the military choose to make it their long-term career. The overwhelming majority of recruits use the military as a stepping-stone, enlisting for one term, then leaving to enroll in school, or pursue a civilian career.
The GI bill is essentially a government grant designed to allow military personnel to attend college for free. The details of how the bill works can be a bit confusing, so read on to learn how to get the most out of the GI Bill.
Category: Financial Aid, Grants, Higher Education, Planning for College
August 16, 2010
We’ve got a lot of juicy news for today’s career education roundup. Let’s get started.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
First, some fear from Kaplan Higher Education, as shares of the The Washington Post Co. (Kaplan’s parent) have fallen by roughly a quarter since a warning earlier in the month that changes in federal education policy could hurt Kaplan’s growth. As the Huffington Post reports, fears of greater losses are significant because Kaplan is the company’s current prize jewel, making up nearly two-thirds of its revenue and operating income.
Strength testing: traditional colleges
You’ve heard of “stress testing” for banks and other financial institutions. How about for traditional colleges? According to a recent article in The Chronicle of Higher Education, 149 traditional (nonprofit) colleges failed the U.S. Department of Education’s “financial responsibility test” for the 2009 fiscal year. The Chronicle loads up on the goods, providing an interactive map of the failing colleges going back three years. See how many your state has …
Category: For-Profit Colleges, Grants, Higher Education
August 10, 2010
Rumors have been cropping up online about a new type of college grant created by President Obama for single mothers.
We can’t be sure, but it seems likely that those rumors were started by advertisements such as these:
Not long ago, an article on propublica.org called out these types of ads as misleading, since no college grant specific to single mothers actually exists. (more…)
Category: Financial Aid, Grants, Planning for College, Required Reading
July 16, 2010
Thought last month’s Senate hearings on for-profit schools were over? Think again! It turns out we don’t need Marty McFly’s DeLorean to travel back in time.
Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) arrives late to last month’s Senate party by contributing a July 13 op-ed in the LA Times and Huffington Post. His editorial recycles Steven Eisman’s Senate testimony from June 24, going through the (yes) sub-prime mortgage industry analogy and other tired ground nearly a month after the fact.
He finally reveals a hint of depth in his thinking by throwing a lifeline to the “good actors” in the very last sentence, which may be too late for the many who probably don’t make it all the way through the 800-word piece:
“The challenge is to crack down on the bad actors and abusive practices while preserving the positive options and innovations that many for-profit colleges have pioneered.”
I think even most intellectually honest for-profit skeptics can agree with that statement, which, unfortunately, is overshadowed by his stat-stuffing with the more eye-catching for-profit education numbers, e.g. “The president of the largest for-profit college is paid nearly 14 times the compensation of the president of Harvard University.” (Secret: the for-profit industry earns profits and people get paid; shh … don’t tell anyone!)
What Senator Harkin—chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP)—conveniently omits is how much short-seller Eisman and his brethren stand to gain from regulating the industry. As Accountable America board chair Tom Matzzie has said, “inviting Steven Eisman to a HELP Committee hearing on a sector he is short selling is like asking an arsonist whether a building will burn down.”
Harkin also conveniently neglects new data from the Delta Cost Project (PDF) that shows traditional schools right behind for-profits in allocating increasing proportions of their revenue toward non-instructional expenses.
In the end, I am not necessarily criticizing Senator Harkin’s position; I am faulting his belated op-ed for rehashed superficiality.
***
Related reading: This blog looked at the new Delta Cost Project findings on college spending trends here. An analysis of Eisman’s pre-hearing New York Post op-ed is here, and read about some of his post-hearing grandstanding … er, generosity … plus our take on parroting from some others in higher education here.
***
Photo courtesy of AdamL212 via Flickr.
again! It turns out we don’t need Marty McFly’s Delorean to
travel back in time. Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) arrives
late to last month’s Senate party by contributing [a July
13 op-ed]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-tom-harkin/for-profit-col
leges-and-t_b_644570.html in the LA Times and Huffington
Post. His editorial recycles Steven Eisman’s senate
testimony from [date], going through the, yes, subprime
mortgage industry analoygy and other tired ground a month
after the fact.
He finally reveals a hint of depth in his thinking by
throwing a lifeline to the “good actors” in the very last
sentence, which may be too late for most who [made up their
minds earlier in the 800-word piece]:
“The challenge is to crack down on the bad actors and
abusive practices while preserving the positive options and
innovations that many for-profit colleges have pioneered.”
I think even most intellectually honest for-profit skeptics
can agree with that statement, which, unfortunately, is
overshadowed by his stat-stuffing of the more eye-catching
for-profit education industry numbers: e.g. “The president
of the largest for-profit college is paid nearly 14 times
the compensation of the president of Harvard University.”
(Secret: the for-profit industry earns PROFITS and people
GET PAID: shh … don’t tell anyone!)
[link to Eisman short-selling blog posts]
What Senator Harkin–chairman of the Senate Committee on
Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP)–conveniently
omits is how much short-seller Eisman and his brethren
stand to gain from regulating the industry. As another
commentator has said [cite], “having Eisman provide the
testimony is like having a drunkard lecture you on
sobriety.” [find the colorful analogy]
CCAP history of political targeting
[document previous blog posts in context or "related
posts"]
Harkin also conveniently neglects new data from the [Delta
Cost Project] (PDF) that shows traditional schools
allocating as much of their revenue toward
non-instructional expenses as for-profits.
In the end, I am not necessarily criticizing Senator
Harkin’s position; I am faulting his belated op-ed for
rehashed superficiality.
Related reading:
This blog looked at the Delta Cost Project findings [here].Thought last month’s Senate hearings were over? Think again! It turns out we don’t need Marty McFly’s Delorean to travel back in time. Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) arrives late to last month’s Senate party by contributing [a July 13 op-ed] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-tom-harkin/for-profit-col leges-and-t_b_644570.html in the LA Times and Huffington Post. His editorial recycles Steven Eisman’s senate testimony from [date], going through the, yes, subprime mortgage industry analoygy and other tired ground a month after the fact. He finally reveals a hint of depth in his thinking by throwing a lifeline to the “good actors” in the very last sentence, which may be too late for most who [made up their minds earlier in the 800-word piece]: “The challenge is to crack down on the bad actors and abusive practices while preserving the positive options and innovations that many for-profit colleges have pioneered.” I think even most intellectually honest for-profit skeptics can agree with that statement, which, unfortunately, is overshadowed by his stat-stuffing of the more eye-catching for-profit education industry numbers: e.g. “The president of the largest for-profit college is paid nearly 14 times the compensation of the president of Harvard University.” (Secret: the for-profit industry earns PROFITS and people GET PAID: shh … don’t tell anyone!) [link to Eisman short-selling blog posts] What Senator Harkin–chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP)–conveniently omits is how much short-seller Eisman and his brethren stand to gain from regulating the industry. As another commentator has said [cite], “having Eisman provide the testimony is like having a drunkard lecture you on sobriety.” [find the colorful analogy] CCAP history of political targeting [document previous blog posts in context or "related posts"] Harkin also conveniently neglects new data from the [Delta Cost Project] (PDF) that shows traditional schools allocating as much of their revenue toward non-instructional expenses as for-profits. In the end, I am not necessarily criticizing Senator Harkin’s position; I am faulting his belated op-ed for rehashed superficiality. Related reading: This blog looked at the Delta Cost Project findings [here].
Category: Financial Aid, For-Profit Colleges, Grants, Higher Education, Loans
June 28, 2010
Over the weekend, “The Choice” blog from The New York Times introduced a report (PDF) from the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance that shows a decreasing rate of college enrollment for low-income high-school graduates and an increasing proportion of annual family income required for four years at a public college.
The report, entitled “The Rising Price of Inequality,” sounds an alarm to the federal government for more need-based state and federal aid. States cutting budgets are reminded that without more grant aid, the number of low-income students who get degrees—or even go to college—will drop over the next decade.
Before you push the panic button, however, you’ll want to view the latest video from CCAP on the very question of whether college is good for everyone. The nine-minute discussion involving the founder (Richard Vedder) and four of its members touches on the reasons why some might want bypass college in certain circumstances. Indeed, the people at CCAP may be delighted to know that the new report (despite arguing for increased access to college) affirms some of the “Is-college-for-everyone?” questioning:
“The major focus of this first report is on 4-year college enrollment and bachelor’s degree attainment, not because every high school graduate must or should enroll in a 4-year college or pursue a bachelor’s degree, but because our financial aid system is founded on the principle that any youth, regardless of family income, should have the financial opportunity to do so, if he or she has the aspiration and prepares adequately.”
[Emphasis added.]
Best video stat: Unemployment among college graduates is 4.9%, the highest ever recorded (excluding the Great Depression, for which data is unavailable).
***
Photo courtesy of Steve Snodgrass via Flickr.
Category: Financial Aid, For-Profit Colleges, Grants, Higher Education
June 7, 2010
“Socially destructive and morally bankrupt.”
No, this is not the mantra by which I live my weekends … at least not lately. Steve Eisman of FrontPoint Partners, a unit of Morgan Stanley, unleashed a scathing critique of the for-profit education industry in a New York Post op-ed on Sunday. While you can be sure plenty of knee-jerk reactions and strident defenses will spring up, many of the complaints have been seen before, most recently in the headline-generating PBS Frontline documentary College Inc. The biggest shots fired are:
1. For-profit education preys on low-income students to feed marketing budgets and salaries of executives.
2. For-profit education is a runaway gravy train of billion-dollar profits from taxpayer dollars (namely, federal Title IV student loans and grant disbursements).
3. For-profit educational institutions are “marketing machines masquerading as universities.”
The most damning comparison is that made to the subprime mortgage industry, which never had a great reputation, but since the latest recession has been thoroughly vilified and assigned unquestionable culpability for much of America’s financial woes. The piece’s school revenue and aid funding numbers are persuasive, and I encourage everybody to see those staggering stats for themselves.
Eisman Commentary Flaws
I will call shenanigans on some cherry-picking, though. When addressing the question of, “How do these schools serve students?” Eisman’s example is of one extreme situation where a certain for-profit school’s credits couldn’t transfer at any local colleges and the degree was unrecognized by a major governing association while local hospitals refused to even interview said medical graduates. As admittedly reprehensible as that college’s service may be, when you take this extreme and generalize across the entire industry to write off the quality of the whole, your argument is undercut. Any high-school rhetoric student can pick one extreme example to support an argument. Using the extreme does not necessarily make you win; it just makes you look flashy and capable of defeating the debater who doesn’t know any better. Also, when he wrote of recruiting practices like “trolling casinos and homeless shelters” and putting billboards in poor neighborhood, he again took marginal cases to represent the whole, skewing the perception of the general recruiting practices in this industry that may very well be above-board.
Takeaway
So while this op-ed on the whole makes a convincing case for the proposed federal regulation of for-profit education, some of the arguments might have been better served by using substantive examples over fringe cases. And the online text itself would have been more compelling were the commentary not wrapped in a Web page template of obtrusive wrinkle cream and muscle ads, flesh-heavy “Post Pics” and videos, and sponsored text ads. There’s nothing quite worth condemning like a greedy profit motive preying on the little guy, is there?
Category: For-Profit Colleges, Grants, Higher Education, Loans, Required Reading
March 24, 2010
Below is our third and final installment of education blog links with notes.
An occasionally irreverent but sharp and unique look at online education, career education, student loans, and other education miscellany.
Higher-education policy analyst Tom Mortenson takes in-depth looks at scholastic legislation, statistics and Pell Grants.
A non-profit academic blogging portal covering a wide range of subjects: from architecture to journalism to sociology, you can find it here.
Devoted to all things mobile learning, or “m-learning,” this blog examines the impact of Web 2.0 technologies on education.
This entry is a bit of a cheat since it refers to a collection of student blogs and not just one blog. The student blogs represent multiple online schools and contain various perspectives on the issues affecting their lives as students of these schools, e.g. “My Capella University Experience.”
***
Did you enjoy these blog resources? See “Juicy Career-Focused Education Blog Links (Part I)” and Part II.
