Corinthian Colleges filed for bankruptcy earlier this week, shortly after the long-embattled chain of for-profit schools abruptly closed all of its remaining campuses.
Like most for-profit colleges, Corinthian was largely dependent on federal student aid – primarily bankruptcy-proof education loans issued to students. Last June, the feds temporarily suspended funding for Corinthian-owned schools, after the Department of Education argued, among other things, that credits from Corinthian schools often proved useless to students, since those credits were not accepted by regionally accredited state schools, nor by various professional licensing boards.
These and similar problems explain why last October, the attorneys general of 14 different states announced their support for a proposed Congressional measure to increase regulations on the for-profit education industry. (Remember, too, that student loan debt is much worse than other forms, because it can't even be discharged in bankruptcy.)
More recently, the Obama administration tried setting new standards on for-profit schools, standards slated to come into effect this July.
Unsurprisingly, for-profit schools are generally opposed to the newer, stricter regulations. But they have a surprising ally. ProPublica's Alec MacGillis yesterday published the results of an in-depth investigation showing that traditional colleges and universities are also working against the new regulations.
For years, the higher education establishment has viewed the for-profit education business as both a rival and an unsavory relation — the cousin with the rap sheet who seeks a cut of the family inheritance. Yet in a striking but little-noticed shift, nearly all of the college establishment’s representatives in Washington are siding with for-profit colleges in opposing the government’s crackdown. … The emerging alliance points to a new calculation by the higher education lobby. By throwing in with the for-profits, traditional schools might be able to capitalize on Republican control of Congress to limit the government’s reach into their own campuses. Among other things, colleges and universities would like to block the proposed new federal ratings system designed to help families choose institutions based on how of their many students graduate and where they get jobs.
Inflated job placement rates
Corinthian and other for-profit schools have long been accused of inflated or outright fraudulent job-placement rates. For example: in mid-April, only a couple weeks before Corinthian's bankruptcy declaration this week, the Department of Education levied a $30 million fine against Corinthian, alleging among other things that Corinthian-owned Heald Colleges paid companies to hire graduates for temporary positions lasting as little as two days, performing such basic tasks as moving computers and organizing cables, then counted those graduates as “placed in field.”
Heald also counted obvious out-of-field jobs as in-field placements, including one graduate of an accounting program whose food-service job at Taco Bell was counted as “in-field” work.
But why would reputable, accredited traditional universities oppose regulations intended to crack down on such fraudulent behaviors? As ProPublica said:
the higher education lobby represents an industry as self-interested as any other—the two largest of the its many trade groups reported spending $500,000 on federal lobbying last year—and it spies an opportunity in the deregulatory instincts of the Republican majority.
The gambit underscores one of the under-appreciated truths about lobbying in Washington in an era of divided government: Special interests are often as interested in preserving a favorable status quo as they are in getting government to take an action to their benefit. To that end, gridlock can be a feature to be encouraged, not a bug.
At stake in this case is the roughly $150 billion that the federal government shovels annually into colleges and universities in the form of Pell grants and subsidized loans for students. Current and former higher education regulators say the federal government is obliged to assure that taxpayers are getting results for that spending.
Tuition rising
Are taxpayers getting their money's worth? Higher education costs – at traditional universities, not even counting the for-profit schools – have risen considerably faster than inflation every year for at least a generation now.
(Personal anecdote: I attended Cheap State U at in-state rates for four consecutive years in the 1990s, and my senior year tuition costs were significantly higher than freshman year's. Adjusted for inflation, I paid $1,760 per semester as a full-time freshman, compared to $2,661 per semester as a senior. For Fall 2015, the in-state tuition cost will be just under $6,270 per semester. Of course, those cited tuition costs do not include the cost of textbooks, housing, food, parking fees, lab fees, student fees, or any other costs related to college.)
So a high school senior today who enrolls at Cheap State U will pay, in inflation-adjusted dollars, at least three times more money than I did for the same degree. Which wouldn't necessarily be a problem if the job market had similarly expanded, so that today's newly minted college grads can reasonably expect salaries two or three times higher than what I made at the same entry-level gigs.
But that hasn't happened. Wages have been stagnating or even falling, even as the cost of educational credentials continues to rise. Students – and, ultimately, federal taxpayers – are spending more money on education than ever. Are they [we] getting results for all that spending?
Perhaps that's a question the “higher education lobby” would prefer nobody ask.