ACE Throws For-Profit School Victims Under the Bus

A key part of the genius behind the American system of (nonprofit) higher education resides in its methods of quality control, which allow higher education institutions to minimize governmental interference and control over their activities. The US has managed to avoid having a central "ministry of higher education" that dictates policy and practice because each institution has a governing board that oversees its activities and especially because of the system of regional accreditation. Accreditation is a "peer review" process whereby carefully selected teams of professionals from peer institutions scrutinize the activities of each institution on a regular basis. Anyone who has ever served on an accrediting team can testify to the fact that accrediting visits are not superficial, pro forma review exercises. On the contrary, an accrediting visit is an extremely detailed review and evaluation of the institution's fundamental operations. Accreditation represents a form of rigorous but decentralized quality control that has allowed the US to develop a vibrant, diverse, and innovative system of higher education that is the envy of the world. If an accredited institution is not handling student aid in a responsible manner, than this should certainly be brought to the attention of the relevant regional accrediting agency, not to mention the institution's board of trustees. To attempt to deal with such aid problems by means of state or federal government legislation or other heavy handed interventions while bypassing governing boards and accrediting agencies would be a huge mistake that compromises and undermines one of the unique strengths of our system.

I substantially agree with Mr. Clark's comments. My career spans 30 years working with federal student aid administration on behalf of institutions in all sectors of education. While my experience includes bachelor degree granting insitutions, non-profits, and municipal adult education facilities, most of my background involves the proprietary (for profit) sector. The fact that the for-profit sector is more highly regulated and accountable to its students than any other sector of education is simply indisputable. The most recent evidence of this selective application of oversight and control is with the Education Department's gainful employment regulations from 2010. In summary, these regulations hold all for-profit institutions accountable for the success of its programs by ensuring that those programs lead to a student's gainful employment in a recognized occupation. If a for-profit institution's programs fail to meet this outcome requirement, the program loses its eligibility for federal funding. There is no such requirement for degree granting programs at traditional public unversities or non-profit schools. The programs at those institutions will continue to benefit from federal financial assistance regardless of whether or not those programs have successful outcomes. It seems as though the United States Congress and Department of Education don't see a problem with a student incurring a $60,000 expense for a 4-year bachelor's degree from a public institution only to end up jobless and in debt. However, they will require that a for-profit institution offering a one-year, $15,000 vocational program ensures that its graduates not only obtain employment, but also that such employment pays a salary significant enough for the graduate to be able to repay his/her educational debt. For-profit instituions are absolutely held to greater standards of success than publics and non-profits. It's also important to point out that "non-profit" is a tax status. Believe me, I've worked with many "non-profits" and I guarantee you that there's plenty of profit being enjoyed by many of the so called "non-profits". As an American taxpayer, I appreciate the standards that for-profit schools must achieve. Since tax dollars are also being used to benefit students at public universities and non-profits, I'd actually like to see those schools held to the same standards as the for-profit schools. The problem is that our entire Congress is a product of traditional, university, degree-granting edcuation and they have no knowledge about what happens everyday in the trenches at the thousands of small for-profit schools. Nor are they aware of the vast majority of success stories resulting from for-profit education. It's human nature to complain about mistreatment, but not to commend success. Yes, there are instances of abuse in the for-profit sector. These abusers should be investigated and prosecuted. But, the abusers are the exception and not the norm. Every sector of any government subsidy program suffers from its abusers. People abuse programs intended to provide assistance to the disabled, the poor, the unemployed, etc. Because there are a small percentage of abusers misusing these programs' benefits, should everyone receiving benefits from these programs be considered an abuser? More importantly, should people respecting the rules of such programs be denied assistance because others have abused the program? In a very real way, that is how all for-profit institutions are treated. For-profits are routinely convicted in the court of public opinion by the uninformed layperson who has no experience with the for-profit sector and only reads the negative anecdotes that seem to constantly be filling the media outlets. Do for-profits have a higher percentage of student loan defaults than public universities? Yes. For-profit schools, however, serve a significantly higher risk, lower income student than traditional universities. Without the lower cost, shorter programs offered by these for-profits, most low income students would have no educational opportunity. Are programs offered by for-profits more expensive than similar programs offered by community colleges? Yes. The training provided by most for-profit schools, however, is more hands-on with smaller student-teacher ratios. For-profit institutions have a greater compliance expense due to the higher level of regulatory accountability. Additionally, for-profit schools do not benefit from the other significant tax subsidies that are enjoyed by community colleges. To truly have an "apple to apples" comparison of educational cost between community college and for-profits, one has to look at not only the tuition cost charged by the community college but also the federal, state, county, and municipal tax revenues that are recognized by the public institutons that are not recognized by private institutions. The bottom line is that educational financial assistance is a student benefit, not an institutional benefit. American students should have the right to pursue whatever career choice they wish. There should be and is accountability on the part of institutions offering education. There also has to be accountability on the part of the student. The disclosure requirements with which institutions must comply are extensive. We have an informed society but all too often one passes blame rather than accepting responsibility for one's own decisions. Any postsecondary education be it for-profit, non-profit, or public requires hard work to succeed. It's no walk in the park and if you thought going to a for-profit school put you on easy street, don't blame the school if you were unable to complete your program. Once our Education committees and the rest of Congress start looking at all sectors of education as equally important to our educational goals, and do more legitimate investigative work than rely on the statements of a handful of disgruntled students or the allegations of a financial advisor with a huge self-interest in the failure of for-profit education, then maybe we'll actually be able to achieve the goals of our current administration. Let's get rid of the bath water, but the baby's future is necessary and important.