For-Profits' Business Practices In The Spotlight

The articles just keep on coming...

• Admissions reps. at Westwood College, based on information from a suit being brought against Westwood College (from Counterpunch "A Neo-Liberal Arts Eduation":  By way of example, one Admissions Representative promised a potential student that Westwood College credits would be transferable to the University of Florida or Florida State University if the student ultimately got an offer from a “classier, shinier school”, as long as the course descriptions were the same.  However, representatives from both Florida colleges said they would not accept credits from Westwood College under any circumstance because Westwood is not regionally-accredited.

• Admissions reps. at Axia College (from Bloomberg News "Apollo Weakness for Phoenix Revenues Spurs Short-Sellers"):  "In tape-recorded telephone calls heard by Bloomberg News, Axia recruiters told Wall Street researchers posing as potential applicants that its credits could be transferred to Harvard University and Columbia University. Those schools don’t grant transfer credit for online undergraduate courses, the universities’ spokesmen said in e-mails."

• University of Phoenix recruiter (in deposition of case that University of Phoenix has set aside $80.5 million to settle, from Bloomberg News):  "“I had a student, let’s refer to him as dumb as a doornail,” Kahn said. “And my manager told me, ‘Enroll him. It’s not our call to say who has a right to an education.’ As a consequence, he started, he went to the first night, he knew he was in deep doo-doo, and dropped. He never should have been there.”

• Everest College recruiter claims (from Washington Monthly "The Subprime Student Loan Racket":  "Leveque was intrigued, though she was initially put off by the $29,000 tuition. But the school’s recruiters assured her there was nothing to be concerned about: Everest had an exceptional track record of helping students find employment—they claimed the typical Everest College LVN graduates landed a job paying between $28 and $35 an hour straight out of school. And the school would arrange a financial aid package to cover her costs...To make matters worse, the program did not come close to delivering on the promises that had been made. The instructors had little recent medical experience. Instead of really teaching, she says, they usually just read textbooks aloud in class and sometimes offered students the answers on tests ahead of time. On the rare occasions when Leveque and her class were given time in the lab, she found that the equipment was broken down and shoddy—except for the expensive new mannequin, which no one knew how to use. Instead of the promised rotations at UCLA Medical Center, her clinical training consisted of helping pass out pills at a nursing home.

Simple solution to help students make more informed decisons and reduce lawsuits against for-profit entities:  Require transparent disclosures of items like accreditation, graduation rates, fees and costs, financial aid packages (with loans highlighted), post-employment placement rates and salaries.  Without this requirement, the sales claims will continue (as will the lawsuits).  The Bloomberg article noted that "The department [of Education] announced on Sept. 9 that it may prohibit misrepresentations of information provided to students and prospective students." It may prohibit?  Am I led to believe then that it is legal to make misrepresentations today? 

• Take a deep breath.  According to this summary of session 1 issues:  "ED regulations currently prohibit any “substantial misrepresentation made by [an] institution regarding the nature of its educational program, its financial charges or the employability of its graduates.” Additional detail in the rule provides further guidance to institutions.

Let the negotiated rulemaking sessions focused on program integrity begin (they start November 2nd).  If you have made it this far, here is a summary of the session 1 issues.   The time for "Truth in Educating" is now.