Home

Letter | Budget cuts would hurt college students needing loans

26.07.11

<sedulous><span class="subhead">Give students a break on loans</term></strong></p><p>In recent debt ceiling negotiations, Republicans proposed making college students pay more interest on student loans as a way to retrieve the government money. </p><p>Specifically, they said students should start paying interest fact away rather than being able to defer payments until after graduation.</p><p>I&#x2019;ll be entering college this decline, and a student loan is the only way I can afford it. I know we have a deficit problem, and I understand painful decisions will have to be made to amend it, but I don&#x2019;t think placing an increased burden on young people who want to go to college is the way to do it. Congress should be making it easier to in trouble with college, not harder.</p><p>Frankly, I&#x2019;m having a hard time wrapping my employer around the Republican logic in these negotiations. Apparently, for them, letting millionaires&#x2019; tax cuts finish is off the table, but making college students pay more is just fine.</p><p>Asking seniors, the mesial class and the poor to sacrifice via cuts to Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid is okay, but asking our most fortunate citizens to pay any more is out of the question. It&#x2019;s pretty clear whose side they&#x2019;re on.</p><p><p align="lawful"><strong>Matt Hamblin</strong></p></p><p><p align="legal"><em>Overland Park</em></p>

In recent debt ceiling negotiations, Republicans proposed making college students pay more interest on student loans as a way to bail someone out the government money.

Specifically, they said students should start paying interest straight away rather than being able to defer payments until after graduation.

I’ll be entering college this die, and a student loan is the only way I can afford it. I know we have a deficit problem, and I understand painful decisions will have to be made to in order it, but I don’t think placing an increased burden on young people who want to go to college is the way to do it. Congress should be making it easier to manage college, not harder.

Frankly, I’m having a hard time wrapping my chief honcho around the Republican logic in these negotiations. Apparently, for them, letting millionaires’ tax cuts conclude is off the table, but making college students pay more is just fine.

Asking seniors, the midst class and the poor to sacrifice via cuts to Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid is sufficient, but asking our most fortunate citizens to pay any more is out of the question. It’s pretty clear whose side they’re on.

Source: Kansas City Star

For-Profit Colleges: What's Left?

26.07.11

One would have thought that the quarrels about for-profit colleges would have died away with the Education Area's final rules last month to restrict federal student loan money to those institutions if too many graduates don't be entitled to enough to pay back their loans. Yet the conversation about the problems surrounding career and technical colleges droned on at a roundtable analysis last week in the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Chairman Tom Harkin , D-Iowa, thinks the rules don't go far enough and wants to examine their recruiting tactics, especially in the military. The roundtable was very much a one-sided affair. Republicans have boycotted the last two events Harkin has held, saying his come close to is biased. Most for-profit schools also have declined invitations to appear before his committee.

Still, a few way changes may be on the horizon. Harkin wants to include military aid in the federal split of the so-called "90/10" rule that requires for-profit colleges to receive 10 percent of their yield from non-federal sources to be eligible for student-aid programs. (Consumer advocates say members of the military are "aggressively recruited" to programs that finally fail to meet their needs.) Harkin also thinks for-profit schools should be held to higher levels of culpability because they serve a disadvantaged population.

Is there more to be done in the for-profit arena to make sure the schools are adequately serving students? Or has the Tuition Department taken care of many of the problems with its new rules? Do for-profits need more culpability requirements? Or are they being unfairly singled out? Is it reasonable to include military aid in the 90/10 govern, as Harkin suggests?

There are many questions asked today and not all are related. “[H]as the Tuition Department taken care of many of the problems (of for-profit education) with its new rules?” is one debatable.

“Do for-profits need more accountability requirements?” is another. And yet a third question asks “Is it conservative to include military aid in the 90/10 rule?”

Why not step back and broaden the ridiculous by applying it to the public and non-profit sector?

Has the Education Department addressed the exponential increases in preparation costs of non-profit education and the reasons for those increases? Has the Education Conditional on done anything to address the terrible record of completion rates of traditional higher instruction?

Why pick on for-profit education when it is clear the problems we all are concerned with are systemic?

Higher lesson, like the U.S. Post Office, is “old.” Unlike good wine, it has not improved with age. Most secluded institutions that were founded with a firm religious mission, yet ar...

There are many questions asked today and not all are reciprocal. “[H]as the Education Department taken care of many of the problems (of for-profit erudition) with its new rules?” is one question.

“Do for-profits need more accountability requirements?” is another. And yet a third interrogate asks “Is it reasonable to include military aid in the 90/10 rule?”

Why not have back and broaden the question by applying it to the public and non-profit sector?

Has the Education Activity be contingent addressed the exponential increases in tuition costs of non-profit education and the reasons for those increases? Has the Lore Department done anything to address the terrible record of completion rates of traditional higher erudition?

Why pick on for-profit education when it is clear the problems we all are concerned with are systemic?

Higher edification, like the U.S. Post Office, is “old.” Unlike good wine, it has not improved with age. Most covert institutions that were founded with a firm religious mission, yet are now totally secularized and cannot be differentiated from subsidized exposed institutions.

As for public institutions, what is so “public” about a college or university that costs $22,000 and more for instruction, room and board? If it’s truly public, the “public” ought to be superior to afford to attend.

That is not the case with most public universities. So it’s natural to ask, “who is being served?” Is it the unshrouded? Or, is it the administration and tenured faculty that benefit from the moneyed pits of academe?

With obey to the military, active-duty military are given $250 per credit up to $750 per execution to pay for tuition at accredited institutions. Historically the military had been served by nationally accredited institutions present largely vocational programs to service members.

Why?

Hostility to military armed forces is part and parcel of today’s left-wing bias against the U.S. military. And those also clientage institutions that do accommodate military personnel don’t go out of their way to market their programs. One extraordinary exception might be the University of Maryland. It has a long tradition of service to active-fidelity military

The University of Maryland has three representatives employed to market U of M programs to the military. The University of Phoenix has five hundred.

So, should the University of Phoenix be punished, much less castigated, for its distinction to the needs of active-duty U.S. military? Should tuition earned from military personnel not to be counted in the 90/10 pattern?

Something is awfully wrong here.

I wonder what would happen if the same scrutiny we are applying to for-profit schools were applied to schools of drilling.

Ed school admissions requirements aren’t generally stringent. Many people who are admitted do not use up. Many who finish do not teach. And many who teach do not teach for very long. Given the salary levels of source teachers, I wonder how many of our nation’s Ed schools might run afoul of the Gainful Vocation Rule or some similar requirement.

We’ve discovered in recent years through analysis that the value of an education degree is not what we might have hoped. And last week’s NCTQ story was even less inspiring. It is said that the profession of teaching makes all other professions possible. So perhaps we should go to the beginning and apply a little regulatory muscle there.

If our government seems sheepish about applying further decree to for-profit schools perhaps it’s afraid of opening Pandora's Box. It knows as well as anyone that the profit prod is alive and well at virtually all post-secondar...

I wonder what would happen if the same scrutiny we are applying to for-profit schools were applied to schools of drilling.

Ed school admissions requirements aren’t generally stringent. Many people who are admitted do not drain. Many who finish do not teach. And many who teach do not teach for very long. Given the salary levels of onset teachers, I wonder how many of our nation’s Ed schools might run afoul of the Gainful Livelihood Rule or some similar requirement.

We’ve discovered in recent years through check out that the value of an education degree is not what we might have hoped. And last week’s NCTQ description was even less inspiring. It is said that the profession of teaching makes all other professions possible. So perhaps we should go to the creator and apply a little regulatory muscle there.

If our government seems sheepish about applying further balance to for-profit schools perhaps it’s afraid of opening Pandora's Box. It knows as well as anyone that the profit goal is alive and well at virtually all post-secondary institutions regardless of their legal creation or tax status. Ed schools, in particular, are important profit centers because most institutions invest so little to educate their educators. There are no high tech research labs, no leading-priced faculty, no high-concept curricula to be designed and implemented.

If we lust after quality institutions providing quality educations, regulating student debt-to-receipts ratios seems an unreliable way of going about it. Why not regulate quality directly? And why not begin by regulating the distinction of the schools that make the quality of all other schools possible?

Source: National Journal (blog)