For-Profits Want Their Credits Accepted By Regionals To Increase Profits, Not For Concern For Their Students.

Since 2001 nationally accredited schools, which are overwhelmingly, for-profit, career, technical and vocational, have had the Transfer of Credit Blues as detailed in the Chronical of Higher Education and have been working to make it more difficult for regionally accredited schools to reject their credits, if not compel them to accept them. This last failure to accomplish this feat has to be frustrating. As I have stated before, they are fundamental reasons why nationally accredited schools which are trade, technical, career and vocational schools are fundamentally different from regionally accredited schools, which are academic. One of the nationals' biggest arguments is that the Department of Education recognizes both accreditations as a reason why regionally accredited schools should accept their credits. This is a bogus argument however, the Department of Education does not set educational standards, the accrediting agencies do, so the fact that the Department recognizes an accrediting agency does not mean that they are all equal in requirements and quality.

One of the reasons that nationally accredited schools have fought so hard to make it hard for regionals to reject their credits, is not because of any concern for their students. If their credits were transferable, this would enhance the value of their schools aka their businesses and investment.

In an article in Inside Higher Education, Elise Scanlon, executive director of the Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges of Technology and Mark Pelesh, executive vice president for legislative and regulatory affairs at Corinthian Colleges, Inc. "both acknowledged, as has been clear in the for-profit sector’s push for new rules or laws on transfer of credit, that part of the reason the issue is so important to commercial colleges is because of what the perceived discrimination says to students and others about their institutions."

Many of for-profit students have complained about the fact the their credits do not transfer to traditional universities and some have sued. Ironically enough, Nancy Broff, general counsel for the Career College Association (CCA), which represents for-profit schools once said: "Students often don't know if their credits will transfer until after switching schools. Most students and parents are unaware of the pitfalls they may encounter if they switch from a career college to a traditional four-year institution." Obviously if the nationally accredited schools are petitioning the government to have them "regulate" acceptance of their credits by regionals, they know there is a problem. Strange how many of their students are not informed of this, huh?

In other words, the real problem, is that many nationally accredited schools purposely don't tell their students of the transfer of credit problem before they enroll! Some go further, and lie and state that the credits transfer, though they know they don't, e.g. Crown College and Florida Metropolitan University.

For-Profit's Lose Out On Transfer of Credits Clause - Money Can't Buy Everything

Well the Senate has revealed the Higher Education Renewal Act and after a cruel feint, that almost gave this blogger a restless night, the for-profit education industry and their campaign contributions have failed to bend reality to their liking again. Despite the fact, that it was included in an earlier draft, there will be no provision mandating that traditional academic universities not solely take into account accreditation when considering whether or not to accept credits from for-profit nationally accredited schools which are overwhelmingly career, technical and vocational in nature. Now that's a mouthful but in essence, as we stated before, for-profit, nationally accredited schools have wanted legislation that dictates that regionally accredited schools cannot reject their transfer credits just because they come, well, from nationally accredited schools.

Now nationally accredited, for-profit schools have been screaming that they are being discriminated against when regionally accredited schools consider the accreditation of nationally accredited schools when making a determination whether or not to accept credits transfered from those schools. Ironically enough, though for-profit schools trumpet the virtues of the free enterprise system, they have sought recourse in the regulatory process, at least as concerns righting this perceived wrong. They have appeared to be on the precipice of such a victory several times, especially with a Republican Congress quite sympathetic to their "plight". However, the Republicans didn't have enough time to pass their version of the Higher Education Act renewal which would have included this language.

When that Congress was replaced by a Democrat one, the Senator of Education, Margret Spelling (pictured) and her Commission on the Future of Higher Education set about to rewrite the accrediting rules to include this provision. What was interesting about this committee that was appointed to rewrite the accrediting rules is the fact that it was overly weighted with representatives of the for-profit education industry while no members of the research and liberal universities who would most be affected by this clause were on the committee. It was as if the Department of Education was trying ensure the outcome by the selection of the persons on the rule making committee. Even with things weighted toward a "positive outcome, the vote to include the transfer of credit provision still failed. As "Inside Higher Education" reported, the person who voted against the provision was then "urged" to resign her seat on the rules committee. That would have resulted in the transfer of credit passage passing.

Well Congress watched Ms. Spelling's attempt to circumvent Congress's jurisdiction build in a series of rule making meetings on accreditation and sent several signals of its discontent, including, a letter from several members of Congress, a letter to Spelling from Lamar Alexander, a republican senator and former secretary of education, protestations from the states, finally in its proposed passage of the higher education act Congress has prohibited the Secretary of Education would prohibit the Education Department from changing federal regulations on colleges’ transfer of credit policies. In fact, Spellings conceded that Congress had trumped her and that her department would not issue new regulations.

For-profits have contributed much money toward getting this provision passed, alas, to no end and that would appear to be one of the reasons that Republicans and the Republican Secretary of Education has pursued this transfer of credit legislation and then rule change. The Department of Education is filled with refugees from for-profit education and the House Committee governing Education was headed by two republican representatives who took a great deal of contributions from for-profit education. Well, money can't buy you everything.

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.

Why Profit Doesn't Necessarily Mean Quality

I recently met with someone and he asked me how a school such as CRI could be successful despite the fact that it had so many unhappy (and indebted) customers. Many feel that the foundation of capitalism is that in a competitive market, the producer of the better product will succeed. There is one glaring exception to this rule however:

There are always confidence men, luring consumers into purchasing inferior or illegitimate products and profiting from the unsophisticated persons who succumb to the fraud. These persons make money precisely because their products are inferior! They don't spend as much money on creating or refining the product and a lot on "marketing" it.

Cases of fraud are embedded in every institution, profit and non-profit, however, non-profit universities have little reason to defraud students. They don't need the student's money, they are funded by the state and endowments which is why they are much more selective. It's not to say that non-profit education is completely free from fraud, however, taken as a whole they are less modified to defraud than for-profit is.

BCTI Students get $9 Mil in Insurance Settlement.

As those who have been paying attention to the state of "vocational" education in Washington state the David Wickert of the Tacoma News Tribune who has reported extensively on BCTI reported that an insurance company for BCTI has agreed to pay $9 million dollars to settle some of the claims of fraud. It's very fortunate that BCTI had insurance for this .... sort of thing. I'm thinking it might be a great idea for the Washington State Workforce Training and Education Board to make it mandatory that these schools carry insurance for fraud. I'm thinking the premiums might be high in light of this settlement, but the price to students was extremely high. Now it's true that each school does pay into a tuition reimbursement fund but this insurance would supplement that. Ironically enough, if more students from Computer Reporting Institute ("CRI") had made successful complaints -- the Seattle Times article stated that only "a dozen" did -- the Tuition Reimbursement Fund might have been exhausted, another reason to have schools take out fraud insurance.

Some of the students from CRI are going to lobby the legislature to post the rules and statute of limitations (1 year from the time you leave the school) for filing a Workforce complaint against a vocational school for tuition refund in a public and central location at each school. Had this legislation been in place, many more students might have made complaints and there is a possibility that the tuition refund kitty would have been overdrawn.

How Alen Janisch and CRI Profited from Not Educating!

You almost have to hand it to Alen Janisch, the director of CRI, congratulate him even. Mike Girgus too, CRI's Director of Education now that's a misnomer for you. Court Reporting Institute (CRI) may be dwarfed by BCTI in the breadth of its fraud but certainly not its persistence and complexity! Here is one of the complaints that finally got the Washington State Workforce Training and Education Board (Workforce Board) to not renew CRI's license to operate. The headings of her complaint read like the for-profit education fraud play book:

1. CRI provided false information regarding their graduation rate, placement rate, and the time it would take students to graduate.

2. CRI gave false information about the skills necessary to become a court reporter, and the costs to be incurred both as a part of the school and upon graduation.

3. CRI continually misled students regarding accreditation standards the school followed, and additionally misled accreditation agency representatives regarding the type of education that was being taught at the school.

4. CRI advertised courses and instruction that were not actually offered, or taught these courses at a level where a student could not potentially learn them at a professional level.

5. CRI consistently employed students as teachers or self-taught classes to a degree not supported by the National Court Reporters Association (NCRA) standards body, of which CRI was initially a member when I began attending and whose standards level CRI consistently claimed to be teaching at, even after losing their accreditation.

6. CRI courses were run by unqualified staff or by staff members who rotated through class at a rate that is unacceptable among any educational standards.

7. Despite a lack of real learning or educational progress, CRI continually moved students ahead to the next level of instruction, yet without teaching the skills necessary to graduate.

8. CRI completely changed the theoretical foundation of their entire educational approach to court reporting in about 1999, but offered no retraining to students taught under the old method, and provided no method for these students -- including myself -- to succeed.

9. Critical components of an education for court reporting -medical and legal terminology - were taught inadequately and unprofessionally.

10. Instruction on Computer Aided Transcription (CAT) software was completely inadequate, despite being a key and vital daily tool used in any court reporter position.

11. CRI misrepresented the basic typing class instruction and training provide by their school.

Sound familiar? It should, this is a problem with many of the fraudulent for-profit education institutions out there. Deceiving students as to the nature of their accreditation, the quality of the instruction, the instructors and the equipment. It could be Crown College and BCTI all over again. They used fellow students as instructors and most of these were not even in attendance. Instead the students were left to teach themselves on shoddy equipment including Walkman tapes. However, when it became time for more financial aid everybody was promoted to the next class in order to make sure that new money was received.

There was a history of complaints at CRI dating back to 1999 however, CRI managed to stay in business until 2005. One of these former students is not going away though, more on her crusade to get some legislative action and possibly have criminal charges filed.

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.