Political Landscape Shifts Toward Student's Welfare

Well good news hails from the Senate as concerns student loans and the welfare of the student itself. Don’t want to be partisan but interesting how now that Democrats are in charge, students instead of lenders are now getting favorable legislation. There is a bill which has been introduced in the house which would trim subsidies for student lenders (not sure why they even needed them to begin with) and use that money to give the students a break. True Capitalists seem to not be able to resist “capitalizing” on any consumer especially the most vulnerable. When Republicans were in charge the welfare of the student lenders was paramount, now that Democrats are in charge things have reversed themselves. In fact, now that the media has gotten hold of the student loan conflict of interest story and run across a crowded field with it as if it were some lady’s undergarments, even the Republicans are pro-student and even challenging the Democrats for not being pro-student enough as detailed in an news article in Inside Higher Education titled "The Competition to Aid Students."

Who can forget James Boehner, despite the fact that he would love his past to slip past minds flummoxed by the lightening speed of the internet. However Source Watch reveals his campaign contribution pedigree and who can forget his Patrick Henry like proclamation, delivered to the Consumer Bankers Association: "Know that I have all of you in my two trusted hands. I've got enough rabbits up my sleeve to be able to get where we need to", still resonates. The internet is like that, its a virtual, resounding terminal echo.

Ironic isn't it, how roaches and other creatures who do their best in dimness totally change when an errant spotlight suddenly finds them. Now that the public is aware of blatant conflicts of interest in the student loan industry and also within the Department of Education, Republicans who were previously only beholden to their capitalist constituents can no longer justify such positions. Campus Progress has taken note of the change of direction without forgetting the "way we were" when Republicans ran things. They list how Republicans voted and the contributions they received not that long ago.

Politicos and The Business of Higher Education

The predation of the huge lending corporate institutions upon young, naive students merely attempting to secure entry to even the basement of the American Dream is indeed pathetic. No less pathetic is the role of their "enablers", the many politicians who will walk lockstep with any entity that contributes to their campaigns; regardless of who these entities profit from or how they do it. "Campaign contributions" is the biggest and most transparent oxymoron in the English language. A campaign contribution is a bribe already. In return for these "contributions", politicians, offer legislative assistance in direct relation to the the portion of the riches that are transferred to them.

John Boehner, who we blogged about earlier, is easily one of the fattest ticks feeding on the twin dogs of student lenders and for-profit schools. In reality, that is a faulty analogy because a tick is a parasite. The situation here is a symbiotic relationship. A more apt analogy would be the feeder fish and sharks. The politicians are the feeder fish gleaning bits of food from the shark's teeth. The amount of money that a lender such as Sally Mae pulls in from the legislation that a John Boehner is able to enact or stop from being enacted is considerable smaller than its one hundred thousand or so contribution to his campaign.

However, Mr. Boehner and the many student lenders and for-profit education he assists, in return for their campaign contributions, are ticks on the students who end up paying higher interest on educational loans and attend for-profit schools based on fraudulent expectations and end up saddled with debt they cannot pay off; on the taxpayers who must pay for the resulting defaults and for DOE officials who let student loan companies keep $278 million here and there, and for legislation that ends up costing the government more expenses so that the ticks can suck more blood in the form of higher interest rates.

Wretched of the Earth Now Include Student Debtors

Student loan debtors now have less rights that persons who have fallen out of favor with the Internal Revenue Service. Our society has certainly come to naught when this kind of behavior is sanctioned by our own government. Actually, its much more than sanctioned, it was part of the 1997 reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. Provisions in that act made it much easier for the government to collect on defaulted loans and also made them harder to discharge in bankruptcy. A Wall Street Journal article explains the crushing effect of this legislation on students on defaulted loans. These provisions were put into place at the behest of John Boehner, Howard "Buck" Mckeon (pictured), and Senator Mike Enzi according to Student Loan Justice and Sally Mae and many debt collectors have reaped the benefit. Fortunately, the light of the media has exposed the symbiotic relationship between these newfangled robber barons and their corporate Repug enablers. Hopefully the astonishing greed of these lending institutions and the injustice visited about the hapless debtors who stumble into their web will be exposed next.

What's the Difference Between Vocational and Academic Education? Campaign Contributions!

Well obviously there are other differences, most notably quality! Regional accreditation conferred on academic, mainly non-profit institutions is far superior to national accreditation which is generally conferred on vocational, technical and career colleges. However if you put enough money in the pockets of the powers that be -- in this case politicians -- you can bend reality to suit what you think it should be, or more specifically the version that you can profit from. Of course, in the phrase "for-profit education" the inflection is on profit!

Speaking of phrases, remember the phrase, history is written by the victors? Well reality can be written by those who contribute the most (lobbyists) to those who shape it, (politicians). Remember the Bush Administration's Clear Sky's Act which, in a rather Orwellian sense, would produce more pollution. It can be difficult to dodge the subterfuge in the title of some legislature. The key to ascertaining the truth is to examine the what politician is sponsoring it, or better yet, the party sponsoring the sponsor! Well the coal, oil and gas industry sponsored Bush so that indicates that the Clear Skys Initiative, regardless of its title, would help the energy industry and thus not lead to clear skies at all, quite the opposite. Got it now?

So, let's apply that lesson to the bill College Access and Opportunity Act which was sponsored by the Hon. John Boehner who is pictured above. That bill, fortunately, languished at the end of the 109th Congress. However, like any cinematic monstrosity, there will be a sequel. Anyway, let's look past the benign title of the bill and see who sponsors its sponsor John Boehner. According to Campus-Progress Mr. Boehner receives tens of thousands of dollars from the for-profits educational industry (He receives lots of money from banks that make federally guaranteed loans to students too, but that is another blog entry). So considering the sponsorship of the bill, well the dual sponsors, John Boehner and well his sponsors, the for-profit education industry, one has to think this bill might have to do more with for-profit education's access and opportunity rather than anyone else! Hmmm, ironically enough, the bill may be appropriated named! Well, the lesson worked! This bill is a great boon or investment return for the sponsors aka the for profit education industry, an industry worth at least $26 billion and funded mostly by the federal government student aid programs. They win big if it passes.

Let's take one provision, language that would state that no regionally accredited school could reject a nationally accredited school's (most of which are for-profits) credits just because they are nationally accredited schools. We visited this topic briefly in a previous entry. This would mean that regionally accredited schools would have to evaluate every single credit in order to justify its rejection. To fully understand exactly what some of these nationally accredited schools teach, let's look at the schools the ACCSCT (American Commission of Career Schools and Colleges of Technology) accredits.

The ACCSCT is the national accreditor which accredits Crown College and is a major force behind the transfer of credits legislation that would favor the schools it accredits. They are one of the largest national accreditors. According to their Accreditation Standards and the schools they accredit it becomes clear why regionally accredited schools are very reluctant to take nationally accredited schools credits. ACCSCT only accredits schools, as defined in I.A.11 of their Standards of Accreditation, which are "postsecondary institution with trade, occupational, or career-oriented educational objectives" not academic educational objectives! This fact becomes even more clear when one looks at the 802 schools they accredit, only a small percentage of which even offer degrees and a smaller amount still that offer bachelors degrees. Looking at a directory of schools they accredit. They accredit schools that teach massage therapy, refrigeration, helicopter aviation, pet grooming, cosmetology, and culinary arts just too name a few. The majority of the schools they accredit offer diplomas or certificates in trades and are obviously not academically oriented. It is also obvious why a regionally accredited school, academically oriented college or university would not want to accept their credits for transfer. To make these schools evaluate each credit is rather ridiculous. What cosmetology or pet grooming credits are going to transfer to the University of Washington or Yale University and how much money should they have to spend to "evaluate" them????