Archives for category: Higher Education

Daniel Goldin, educatuon editor of Pro Publica, has written a new book about spying by foreign exchange students.

This practice has been rumored for years but no one has pinned down evidence.

Emily Richmond of the Education Writers Association wrote about his new book:

In his recent book, “Spy Schools,” veteran higher education journalist and two-time Pulitzer Prize winner Daniel Golden builds a compelling case that the globalization of American universities has made them fertile territory for espionage. Using case studies and sometimes stunning revelations, he shows how foreign operatives are exploiting access to get a better understanding of U.S. policies and practices, and, in some cases, to steal valuable scientific research. On the flipside, American intelligence agencies are cultivating foreign students in the U.S. in hopes of grooming them to become informants when they return to their home countries. How did Golden uncover some of these practices, and what’s been the fallout from his reporting for the schools and programs he featured? What makes American colleges and universities particularly vulnerable to espionage? And what can campuses do to better protect their intellectual property? Plus, Golden—the education editor for ProPublica—shares story ideas for reporters covering international students at local postsecondary institutions.

Goldin wrote a book about how very rich people buy seats for their children in elite universities, and one of his examples was Jared Kushner, whose fathers gave Harvard $2 Million plus the year before Jared plied. He was accepted over several others from his high school who were better qualified.

He is the author of The Price of Admission: How America’s Ruling Class Buys Its Way into Elite Colleges—and Who Gets Left Outside the Gates.

No surprise. The U.S. Justice Department supports a rightwing group suing Harvard to stop its efforts to promote diversity.

Asian-American Students Suing Harvard Over Affirmative Action Win Justice Dept. Support https://nyti.ms/2LEHdpL?smid=nytcore-ios-share

The plaintiffs want test scores to trump every other factor.

Although Asian Americans are accepted at far higher rates than their proportion of the population, the plaintiffs want fewer blacks and Hispanics admitted.

Mike Klonsky reflects on our current gun-happy Secretary of Education, who wants to let schools buy guns with money intended for education, and her predecessor Arne Duncan, who bought high-powered guns to track down students who defaulted on their loans.

Who knew?

http://michaelklonsky.blogspot.com/2018/08/devos-and-duncan-both-bought-into-gun.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+mikeklonsky+(SmallTalk)&m=1

A very welcome column about our odious Secretary of Education by the brilliant Gail Collins.

The Bane That Is Betsy DeVos https://nyti.ms/2MvmgC5?smid=nytcore-ios-share

Today let’s talk about the evil deeds of Betsy DeVos.

We’ve been distracted, what with Omarosa and the Manafort trial and that $90 million military parade we were so looking forward to. At the same time, our secretary of education has been busy, working to protect for-profit colleges from their students.

Yes! We keep being told that Donald Trump was elected because working-class Americans were worried that their kids wouldn’t be able to move up in the world. And now DeVos is making it easier for those very same kids to be cheated when they try to prepare for a career.

It’s quite a story, just as DeVos is quite a gal. Probably the first secretary of education with a $40 million family yacht that’s registered in the Cayman Islands, presumably to avoid American taxes.

Is that the yacht that got mysteriously untied the other day?

Yes, it was moored in Ohio and an unknown person set it adrift, causing up to $10,000 in damage. We do not approve of this sort of behavior, people! Somebody could have gotten hurt. And the DeVos family might have been without a floating residence, except for the other nine yachts they own.

But before I permit any more distractions, we need to discuss policymaking at the Department of Education:

The Obama administration worked very hard to weed out bad for-profit colleges. The policy it finally came up with was to compare an average graduate’s debt with the average graduate’s earnings. Then cut off federal grants and loans to the schools that had a really terrible ratio. And give the students who’d gotten a raw deal a chance to get their loans forgiven.

Excuse me, but does this apply to, say, philosophy majors? My grandson is finishing up at the state university and I do not see how all these courses on Heidegger are going to get him work.

No, we’re talking about schools that are just there to prepare students for a career, whether it’s computer engineering or cooking or auto mechanics. Your grandson is in a privileged minority. If you want an American college student to worry about, Suzanne Martindale of Consumers Union says you should think less about a kid on a four-year campus and more about “someone 29 with three kids.”

Or Stephanie Stiefel, who enrolled at the now-defunct for-profit International Academy of Design and Technology in Tampa to get a B.A. that she was assured would lead to a good-paying position in interior design: “They made it seem so simple — just do well in class and finish the program.” She graduated with a 3.8 and $62,000 in debt, then discovered that the only jobs she could land were minimum-wage positions she could have gotten without any training at all. Other schools wouldn’t accept her credits when she tried to get an advanced degree. Now, 10 years later, she’s finished a tour of duty in the Army and owes $110,000. “At this point I just make the payment and cry about it,” she said.

DeVos, meanwhile, is worried about the government making “burdensome” demands on the for-profit schools. We will take a break for a minute to sigh.

Oh gosh, this is so depressing. I hate thinking about the things this administration is doing to ordinary people. Is there any chance you could distract me by working in Omarosa?

Well, be a good citizen and stay with me for a minute.

DeVos loves for-profit education — you may remember she championed an overhaul of the Michigan school system, which replaced troubled public schools with truly terrible charter schools, most of them for-profit.

So she’s chipping away at anything the for-profits don’t like. Like the Obama rule allowing aggrieved students to petition to get their loans forgiven. The new idea would pretty much limit relief to people who’ve fallen into deep financial distress. Nobody seems to have seen that one coming.

And lord knows what’s next. Amy Laitinen, at the nonpartisan think tank New America, is worrying that the department will “allow a college to outsource its program to an unaccredited provider.” Which in theory could mean that when you pay your tuition to what seems to be a legitimate school, you could find yourself bused over to Trump University for classes.

I’m so glad you got Trump University in there.

DeVos has stuffed her department with people from the for-profit education industry. The guy who’s supposed to be overseeing fraud investigations is a former dean of a for-profit named DeVry University, which paid $100 million to settle a lawsuit over misleading marketing tactics.

But you still promised me Omarosa. Find a way to work her in.

The famous memoir claims Trump calls his secretary of education “Ditzy DeVos” and vowed to get rid of her. The first certainly sounds likely. But by now we are well aware that the current president of the United States is incapable — oh, irony of ironies — of firing anybody. And I don’t want to give you the impression that Trump has any reservations about for-profit colleges that make grandiose promises to their students about future careers, while taking their money and preparing them for nothing whatsoever.

Valerie Strauss wrote here about Betsy DeVos’s plan to remove consumer protections from students who were scammed.

“Why would anyone want to make it harder for defrauded students? Well, the Education Department says that college students are “adults who can be reasonably expected to make informed decisions and who must take personal accountability for the decisions they make.” Supporters of the proposed changes say it is too easy for students to apply for loan forgiveness and that too much public money will have to be used to repay bad loans.

“To be sure, college students are indeed adults who can be reasonably expected to make informed decisions. And adults should indeed take personal accountability for the decisions they made.

“But the proposed regulation says, among other things, that to qualify for loan forgiveness, students who claim they have been defrauded have to prove the college intended to defraud them and show that the college had exhibited a “reckless disregard” for the truth.

“That is not, for example, the standard for state lemon laws, which offer compensatory remedies to consumers who buy cars and other goods that prove to be defective. They don’t insist that the consumers prove that a car dealer or manufacturer intended to commit fraud by making and selling a flawed product.

“Let’s say DeVos, a billionaire from Michigan, decided to buy a new yacht and it turned out to have a bum engine that broke down repeatedly. Would she have to prove the seller intended to defraud her to seek replacement or some kind of compensation?

“Consumer products are not college education, for sure, but the Trump administration believes in operating schools as if they were businesses, so the comparison seems apt.”

Is Betsy DeVos the meanest woman in America?

She has just taken the steps needed to remove protections from students defrauded by predatory for-profit “colleges.”

Like others in the despicable Trump maladministration, DeVos thinks that consumers should fend for themselves. If they get defrauded, it’s their own fault for making a bad choice.

You can see where this is going. Government protects the marketplace, not the consumers. If you happened to get suckered by slick advertising, that’s your fault. Don’t expect the government to police the marketplace. Caveat emptor is your job.

DeVos previously rolled back regulations that allowed students who were defrauded to get a refund.

“Education Secretary Betsy DeVos formally moved Friday to scrap a regulation that would have forced for-profit colleges to prove that the students they enroll are able to attain decent-paying jobs, the most drastic in a series of policy shifts that will free the scandal-scarred, for-profit sector from safeguards put in effect during the Obama era.

“In a written announcement posted on its website, the Education Department laid out its plans to eliminate the so-called gainful employment rule, which sought to hold for-profit and career college programs accountable for graduating students with poor job prospects and overwhelming debt. The Obama-era rule would have revoked federal funding and access to financial aid for poor-performing schools.

“After a 30-day comment period, the rule is expected to be eliminated July 1, 2019. Instead Ms. DeVos would provide students with more data about all of the nation’s higher education institutions — not just career and for-profit college programs — including debt, expected earnings after graduation, completion rates, program cost, accreditation and other measures.

“Students deserve useful and relevant data when making important decisions about their education post-high school,” Ms. DeVos said in a statement. “That’s why instead of targeting schools simply by their tax status, this administration is working to ensure students have transparent, meaningful information about all colleges and all programs. Our new approach will aid students across all sectors of higher education and improve accountability.”

“But in rescinding the rule, the department is eradicating the most fearsome accountability measures — the loss of federal aid — for schools that promise to prepare students for specific careers but fail to prepare them for the job market, leaving taxpayers on the hook to pay back their taxpayer-backed loans.

“The DeVos approach is reversing nearly a decade of efforts to create a tough accountability system for the largely unregulated for-profit sector of higher education. In recent years, large for-profit chains, which offer training for everything from automotive mechanics to cosmetology to cybersecurity, have collapsed under mountains of complaints and lawsuits for employing misleading and deceptive practices.

“The implosions of ITT Technical Institute and Corinthian Colleges generated tens of thousands of complaints from student borrowers who said they were left with worthless degrees. The Obama administration encouraged the expansion of public community colleges as it forgave at least $450 million in taxpayer-funded student debt for for-profit graduates who could not find decent jobs with the degrees or certificates they had earned.

“The regulations passed in the wake of those scandals remade the industry. Since 2010, when the Obama administration began deliberating the rules, more than 2,000 for-profit and career programs — nearly half — have closed, and the industry’s student population has dropped by more than 1.6 million, said Steve Gunderson, the president of Career Education Colleges and Universities, the for-profit industry’s trade association.”

There is a simple principle that every student should think about: Avoid for-profit “Colleges”and “universities.”

Don’t be scammed by the next fake “Trump University.”

The Trump administration has officially abandoned affirmative action, having decided that African Americans and Latinos no longer need any additional breaks and can pull themselves up by their own shoelaces.

Trump forgot that his son-in-Law Jared Kushner was the beneficiary of affirmative action. As detailed by journalist Daniel Golden in a book about preferential treatment for rich boys, Kushner’s dad gave Harvard a couple of million dollars, although no one in the family ever went to Harvard. This cleared the way for Jared’s admission, who vaulted over better qualified applicants from the same high school. Golden’s Book is called “The Price of Admission: How America’s Ruling Class Buys Its Way into Elite Colleges—and Who Gets Left Outside the Gates.”

I’m not sure how Donald got into the Wharton School. It surely wasn’t grades or brains or even athletic skills (remember that the bone spur in his foot enabled him to avoid the Vietnam draft, his fifth deferment).

The story begins:

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration will encourage the nation’s school superintendents and college presidents to adopt race-blind admissions standards, abandoning an Obama administration policy that called on universities to consider race as a factor in diversifying their campuses, Trump administration officials said.

Last November, Attorney General Jeff Sessions asked the Justice Department to re-evaluate past policies that he believed pushed the department to act beyond what the law, the Constitution and the Supreme Court had required, Devin M. O’Malley, a Justice Department spokesman said. As part of that process, the Justice Department rescinded seven policy guidances from the Education Department’s civil rights division on Tuesday.

“The executive branch cannot circumvent Congress or the courts by creating guidance that goes beyond the law and — in some instances — stays on the books for decades,” Mr. O’Malley said.

The Supreme Court has steadily narrowed the ways that schools can consider race when trying to diversify their student bodies. But it has not banned the practice.

Now, affirmative action is at a crossroads. The Trump administration is moving against any use of race as a measurement of diversity in education. And the retirement of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy at the end of this month will leave the court without its swing vote on affirmative action and allow President Trump to nominate a justice opposed to a policy that for decades has tried to integrate elite educational institutions.

A highly anticipated case is pitting Harvard against Asian-American students who say one of the nation’s most prestigious institutions has systematically excluded some Asian-American applicants to maintain slots for students of other races. That case is clearly aimed at the Supreme Court.

“The whole issue of using race in education is being looked at with a new eye in light of the fact that it’s not just white students being discriminated against, but Asians and others as well,” said Roger Clegg, president and general counsel of the conservative Center for Equal Opportunity. “As the demographics of the country change, it becomes more and more problematic.”

The Obama administration believed that students benefit from being surrounded by diverse classmates, so in 2011, the administration offered schools a potential road map to establishing affirmative action policies that could withstand legal scrutiny. The guidance was controversial at the time that it was issued, for its far-reaching interpretation of the law. Justice officials said that pages of hypothetical scenarios offered in the guidance were particularly problematic, as they clearly bent the law to specific policy preferences.

In a pair of policy guidance documents, the Obama Education and Justice departments told elementary and secondary schools and college campuses to use “the compelling interests” established by the court to achieve diversity. They concluded that the Supreme Court “has made clear such steps can include taking account of the race of individual students in a narrowly tailored manner.”

The Trump administration’s decisions on Tuesday brought government policy back to the George W. Bush administration guidances. The Trump administration did not formally reissue Bush-era guidance on race-based admissions, but, in recent days, officials did repost a Bush administration affirmative action policy document online.

That document states, “The Department of Education strongly encourages the use of race-neutral methods for assigning students to elementary and secondary schools.”

For the past several years, that document had been replaced by a note declaring that the policy had been withdrawn. The Bush policy is now published in full, with no note attached. It reaffirmed its view in 2016 after a Supreme Court ruling that said that schools could consider race as one factor among many.

In that case, Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, a white woman claimed she was denied admission because of her race, in part because the university had a program that admitted significant numbers of minorities who ranked in the top 10 percent of their class.

“It remains an enduring challenge to our nation’s education system to reconcile the pursuit of diversity with the constitutional promise of equal treatment and dignity,” Justice Kennedy wrote for the 4-3 majority.

The Trump administration’s plan would scrap the existing policies and encourage schools not to consider race at all. The new policy would not have the force of law, but it amounts to the official view of the federal government. School officials who keep their admissions policies intact would do so knowing that they could face a Justice Department investigation or lawsuit, or lose federal funding from the Education Department.

A senior Justice Department official pushed back against the idea that these decisions are about rolling back protections for minorities. He said they are hewing the department closer to the letter of the law.

He noted that rolling back guidance is not the same thing as a change of law, so that the decision to rescind technically would not have a legal effect on how the government defends or challenges affirmative-action related issues.

The move comes at a moment when conservatives see an opportunity to dismantle affirmative action.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions has said his prosecutors will investigate and sue universities over discriminatory admissions policies. And the conservative-backed lawsuit against Harvard is being pushed by the same group, the Project on Fair Representation, that pressed Fisher.

Harvard was sued for discriminating against Asian Americans, by looking at factors other than test scores and grades. Harvard, like many universities, attempts to use multiple measures and seeks to have a diverse student body. Its class of 2021 has a mix of Whites, African Americans, Latinos, and Asian Americans. As I wrote earlier,

The U.S. population is about 6% Asian, African Americans are 13%, whites are 61%, Hispanics are 18%.

The Harvard class of 2021 is 22% Asian, 14.6% African American, 11.6% Latino, and 2.5% Native American or Pacific Islander.

The group that is suing is attempting to eliminate affirmative action altogether. It is called Students for Fair Admissions. Its president is Edward Blum of the conservative American Enterprise Institute. Eliminating affirmative action would dramatically reduce the proportion of Latinos and African Americans admitted to selective colleges. Blum hopes to eliminate all racial and ethnic preferences.

Politico reports that a far broader group of Asian American organizations weighed in support affirmative action:

“COALITION VOICES SUPPORT FOR AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: A coalition of 34 national Asian Pacific American organizations says it rejects the notion that a majority of Asian American Pacific Islanders oppose affirmative action. The group issued a statement Friday in reaction to New York Times coverage of a lawsuit alleging discrimination against Asian Americans in Harvard University’s admissions policies. The National Council of Asian Pacific Americans calls the argument a “false narrative” that exists to drive a wedge between its community and other minority and underserved communities.

— After examining Harvard’s data, the council said it does not believe there was “intentional or implicit bias against Asian American applicants.” “If we did conclude that Harvard’s admissions policies were impacted by implicit bias against our community, we would most certainly voice our concern. We strongly support admission policies that aim to make colleges and universities more diverse and we stand in solidarity with other communities of color,” the statement said. The case is the most recent test for affirmative action at colleges, and is being watched closely across the higher education community.”

NPR reports that thousands of teachers who received grants under the federal TEACH program recently discovered that they had been converted to loans, with interest accruing.

What a disgrace!

America needs teachers committed to working with children who have the fewest advantages in life. So for a decade the federal government has offered grants — worth up to $4,000 a year — to standout college students who agree to teach subjects like math or science at lower-income schools.

But a new government study, obtained by NPR and later posted by the Department of Education, suggests that thousands of teachers had their grants taken away and converted to loans, sometimes for minor errors in paperwork. That’s despite the fact they were meeting the program’s teaching requirements.

“Without any notice, [my grant] was suddenly a loan, and interest was already accruing on it,” says Maggie Webb, who teaches eighth-grade math in Chelsea, Mass. “So, my $4,000 grant was now costing me $5,000.”

Since 2008, the Education Department has offered these so-called TEACH grants to people studying to get a college or master’s degree. The deal is, they get to keep the grant money if they spend four years teaching a high-need subject like math or science in schools that serve low-income families.

If they don’t keep their end of the bargain, the grants convert to loans that need to be paid back. But, the study finds, many teachers believe they kept their end of the bargain but are now being asked to repay that money anyway.

Christine Langhoff reports a Twitter exchange with a lawyer in New York who is willing to help any teacher caught in this snare. @chuckrock

Like Trump’s separation policy, DeVos will stop at nothing to hurt debt-ridden students and support debt collectors. She thinks that is her job. To harass students and teachers.

Last year, Julia Sass Rubin of Rutgers University devised a solution to Harvard’s admissions policy problem. Harvard is bow being sued by a group called Students for Fair Admissions, which claims to be supporting Asian-Americans, but is actually fronting for white conservatives who hate affirmative action.

She writes:

“Harvard actually accepts a disproportionately large percentage of Asian students, who make up approximately 6 percent of the U.S. population but will comprise more than 22 percent of Harvard’s incoming class. The claims of anti-Asian bias in Harvard admissions are based, in large part, on the number of Asian applicants with high standardized test scores relative to the number admitted.

“Ironically, Harvard has contributed to its current legal challenges by requiring standardized tests as part of its admission process. This helps legitimize standardized tests as an objective means of evaluating applicants. In reality, the tests favor students from families with greater wealth and educational attachment….

“Standardized test scores are also impacted by test preparation, and students who have taken the test previously score higher than those who are taking it for the first time. This further skews test results in favor of wealthier students, whose families can afford expensive test preparation services and multiple rounds of test taking.

“The strong correlation between income, education and race/ethnicity translates the economic and educational bias of standardized tests into a racial one, giving an advantage to Asians and whites. Although substantial poverty exists among both groups, on average, Asians and whites in the United States are much wealthier and have significantly higher educational attainment than blacks and Hispanics…

“A January 2016 report released by the Harvard Graduate School of Education and signed by more than 80 admissions officers, including those from all eight Ivy League schools, urged universities to move toward test-optional admission policies. To date, more than 950 universities and colleges have adopted such policies or eliminated standardized tests entirely from their admission process. Unfortunately, that group does not include a single Ivy League university.

“This is a missed opportunity. By eliminating the use of standardized tests, Harvard and the other Ivy League schools could help end the myth of test-based meritocracy and highlight that our country’s persistent and growing inequality of opportunity requires universities to consider applicants’ race, ethnicity, gender and family income if they hope to achieve meritocratic outcomes.”