Archives for category: Higher Education

Jan Resseger writes here about Betsy DeVos’s decision to overrule a strong recommendation from Department career staff and resinstate an accrediting agency with a terrible record.

Before the Obama Department of Education put the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools (ACICS) out of business in 2016, ACICS had been instrumental in accrediting a number of unscrupulous, for-profit colleges whose fiscal survival depended on attracting students bringing dollars from federal loans. After ACICS was put out of business by the Obama Department of Education, ACICS filed a lawsuit claiming its record had not been fully examined. In March of this year, a federal judge ruled in favor of the accreditation agency—saying that the Department of Education still needs to consider 36,000 pages of information ACICS submitted that was never considered. On April 3, 2018, after the judge’s ruling, Education Secretary, Betsy DeVos conditionally reapproved ACICS pending further study.

Last Friday, however, DeVos’s department was forced to release an internal report drafted by career staff at the U.S. Department of Education, a report condemning ACICS and recommending that its status as an accreditor be terminated. In April, DeVos ignored this new staff report when she restored—conditionally— the agency’s status. The Chronicle of Higher Education‘s Eric Kelderman explains: “For the second time in less than two years, officials at the U.S. Department of Education have recommended against approving a controversial accrediting agency that primarily oversees for-profit colleges. But their finding may have little effect on the accreditor’s future. Friday evening, the department released a 244-page document advising that the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools, known as ACICS, failed to meet nearly 60 federal regulations on accreditation. The analysis is a draft of a report that was meant to be released in May at a hearing scheduled to consider the accreditor’s status. That hearing was cancelled following a judge’s order in a lawsuit filed by the council.”

Advocates have pressured for the release of the Department’s internal draft report, while, of course, ACICS has been trying to block the report’s becoming public. The Wall Street Journal‘s Michelle Hackman explains: “The document was released Friday under the Freedom of Information Act after the Century Foundation… sued the Education Department for initially declining to make it public. ‘It’s no wonder that ACICS and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos didn’t want this report to come out,’ said Alex Elson, a former Obama-era Education Department official whose firm, the National Student Loan Legal Defense Fund, helped sue the department. ‘Clearly, she was well aware that ACICS was getting worse, not better.’ The career staff’s findings could put Mrs. DeVos in a tough position as she weighs whether to allow the accreditor to continue operating.”

Why would DeVos do this?

Does she like accrediting agencies that ignore fraud?

Apparently the answer is yes.

After all, she was an investor in for-profit colleges before she became secretary. Did she divest? Who knows?

There is an emerging consensus among researchers that high school grade point average is a better predictor of success in college than scores on the SAT or ACT.

This appears to be the case for students transitioning directly from high school to college. For those who have delayed admission by a year or more, the tests have a slight advantage in math, not in English. The advantage is very small.

“Among students who delayed college entry, GPA didn’t consistently turn out to be more predictive than standardized exam scores. It depended on the subject and exam. Compared to SAT and ACT scores, GPA was a better predictor for success with college English. But compared to the ACCUPLACER scores, the percentage of the variance in college-level English grades explained by GPA was only one point greater. In math, the percentage of the variance in college-level math grades was just a point higher than the percentage explained by SAT scores. GPA was less predictive of college-level math grades than were ACT and ACCUPLACER scores.”

Given the predictive value of the GPA, there is no advantage for students or colleges in using standardized admissions tests.

Currently, in the competition to gain admission to highly selective colleges, parents spend large sums to pay for test prep. Some spend thousands of dollars. The top tutors command hundreds of dollars per hour, even $1,000 an hour.

To see how crazy this is, read this article by an SAT tutor who commands $1,000 an hour. At first, I thought he was jeopardizing his lucrative gig by this public confession, but by the time I finished reading, I realized he had transitioned into online tutoring, which apparently makes lots of dough and works as well as personal meetings. When confronting a mechanical test, a mechanical prep works well.

He writes:

“Nearly every student who came my way was, apparently, a “bad tester.”

“What do most parents mean when they refer to their children as bad testers?

Bad tester (n.): A student capable of keeping a 3.9 GPA at a competitive high school while participating in four extracurricular pursuits who is nonetheless incapable of learning the small set of math facts, grammar rules, and strategies necessary to get a high SAT score.

“How is it possible that a student who can ace his trigonometry tests and get an A+ in English can’t apply those same skills to the SAT? On the surface, it seems unlikely. But as I learned, parents and students around the country have been conned into thinking that it’s not only possible but standard.

“The first thing you need to know in order to understand the illegitimacy of this entire concept: The SAT isn’t particularly difficult.

“What do you need for a perfect SAT score? A thorough knowledge of around 110 math rules and 60 grammar rules, familiarity with the test’s format, and the consistent application of about 40 strategies that make each problem a bit easier to solve. If you can string together a coherent essay, that’s a plus…

“Kids are remarkable learners. If we give them the tools they need to study, the belief that they can learn on their own, and the gentle support necessary to encourage the process, they’ll accomplish remarkable things.

“On the other hand, if we put the power of education in the hands of figureheads, externalized structures, and programs that dictate what students are supposed to learn, when, where, and how, American students will continue to flounder.

“I’ve seen what students can do and learn on their own, and I’ve seen how students act when someone else is given the reins. I prefer the former.“

The author is explaining how to prep for the test.

Why take the test when your GPA matters more and shows your persistence over four years?

Even better for students would be to skip the test, save your parents’ money, go to school daily, do the work, and improve your GPA.

New York Times opinion columnist Frank Bruni worries about the vocationalization of liberal arts colleges, many of which are racing to turn their curriculum into college readiness pathways.

This is not a new concern. Twenty years ago, classicist Victor Davis Hansen wrote “Who Killed Homer?” about the death of the classics.

What Bruni describes is a giant scythe mowing down liberal arts majors in the pursuit of occupational relevance.

He writes:


History is on the ebb. Philosophy is on the ropes. And comparative literature? Please. It’s an intellectual heirloom: cherished by those who can afford such baubles but disposable in the eyes of others.

I’m talking about college majors, and talk about college majors is loud and contentious these days. There’s concern about whether schools are offering the right ones. There are questions about whether colleges should be emphasizing them at all. How does a deep dive into the classics abet a successful leap into the contemporary job market? Should an ambitious examination of English literature come at the cost of acquiring fluency in coding, digital marketing and the like?

Last Sunday The Chronicle of Higher Education published a special report that delved into this debate. One of the storiesdescribed what was happening at the flagship campus of the University of Illinois and at Assumption College in Worcester, Mass., casting these developments as different harbingers for higher education.

Illinois is pairing certain majors in the liberal arts — for example, anthropology and linguistics — with computer science. Assumption is doing away with a host of traditional majors in favor of new ones geared to practical skills. Goodbye, art history, geography and, yes, classics. Hello, data analytics, actuarial science and concentrations in physical and occupational therapy.

Assumption is hardly an outlier. Last year the University of Wisconsin at Superior announced that it was suspending nine majors, including sociology and political science, and warned that there might be additional cuts. The University of Wisconsin at Stevens Point recently proposed dropping 13 majors, including philosophy and English, to make room for programs with “clear career pathways.”

While these schools are swapping out certain majors for others, some higher education leaders are asking whether such devotion to a single field of study — and whether a college experience structured around that — are the right way to go.

“The future of work calls for something more radical: the elimination of academic majors as we have come to know them,” Jeffrey Selingo, the founding director of the Academy for Innovative Higher Education Leadership, wrote in a column that was part of The Chronicle’s special report. He advocated a college education that spans “all academic disciplines.”

Selingo is the author of several books about the rightful role and uses of college, the most recent of which, “There Is Life After College,” illustrates how thoughtful he can be on these matters.

But I worry that he’s suggesting an either/or where there needn’t be one. I worry that the current conversation about majors is part of a larger movement to tug college too far in a vocational direction.

And I worry that there’s a false promise being made. The world now changes at warp speed. Colleges move glacially. By the time they’ve assembled a new cluster of practical concentrations, an even newer cluster may be called for, and a set of job-specific skills picked up today may be obsolete less than a decade down the road. The idea of college as instantaneously responsive to employers’ evolving needs is a bit of a fantasy…

Part of the skepticism toward traditional majors reflects a correct feeling that at some schools, some fields of study and course offerings are preserved largely because the faculty have a selfish investment in the status quo. If seats in the classroom are perpetually empty and money is sorely needed elsewhere, colleges shouldn’t ignore that.

But it’s a balancing act, because colleges shouldn’t lose sight of what makes traditional majors — even the arcane ones — so meaningful, especially now. And they shouldn’t downgrade the nonvocational mission of higher education: to cultivate minds, prepare young adults for enlightened citizenship, give them a better sense of their perch in history and connect them to traditions that transcend the moment. History, philosophy and comparative literature are bound to be better at that than occupational therapy. They’re sturdier threads of cultural and intellectual continuity.

And majoring in them — majoring in anything — is a useful retort to the infinite distractions, short attention spans and staccato communications of the smartphone era. Perhaps now, more than ever, young people need to be shown the rewards of sustained attention and taught how to hold a thought. That’s what a major does. There’s a reason that it’s often called a discipline.

“Becoming versed in the intricacies of a complex thing is itself a worthwhile skill,” Johnson said. I agree. It also underscores what real knowledge and true perspective are. In a country that’s awash in faux expertise and enamored of pretenders, that’s no small thing.

Students interested in using their education for expressly vocational purposes should have an array of attractive options in addition to college, which isn’t right for everyone and is hardly the lone path to professional fulfillment. Some of those options should be collaborations with employers grooming the work force they need.

But students who want to commune with Kant and Keats shouldn’t be made to feel that they’re indulgent dilettantes throwing away all hope of a lucrative livelihood. They’re making a commitment to a major that has endured because its fruits are enduring.

Charles P. Pierce, blogger for Esquire, is one of my favorite writers. He has a knack for getting right to the point with pithy phrases and colorful images.

In this post, he calls out a few of the unsavory profiteers in the Trump administration, starting with Ryan Zinke and Scott Pruitt, who have a taste for first-class travel on the taxpayers’ dime.

Then he gets to DeVos, and he skewers her for abandoning the Department of Ecucation’s Obligation to protec college students who are victims of fraud by for-profit “universities” like Trump University.

DeVos’s spokeswoman Elizabeth Hill defends DeVos’ indefensible actions, as usual.

Pierce writes:

Where do they find these embarrassingly bot-like public liars? How does one “provide oversight” beyond doing investigations? As to Ms. Hill’s assurances that the presence of so many former higher-ed scamsters in the department had no influence in the decision, well, we are once again up against the most serious ontological question about this administration: How many foxes do there have to be before the henhouse becomes a foxhouse?

Trevor Noah of the Daily Show explains here in a short video everything you need to know about Betsy DeVos’s decision to terminate the unit investigating fraud in the for-profit college sector. This is an example of a video conveying more than thousands of words.

Bill Black, a specialist in white-collar crime, discusses Betsy DeVos’ plan to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education team investigating fraud at those predatory for-profit colleges and to staff the Department with veterans of the institutions under investigation. Like many people, I have described her actions as “putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.” Black says it is far worse than that. The right metaphor, he says, is putting the vampire in charge of the blood bank. What is happening now is not just a policy dispute; it is a deliberate program to protect institutional behavior that should be treated as criminal fraud. The victims are college students who are poor and middle-class, who have every right to expect that the government will protect them against fraud, not enable the fraud.

This is only a part of the interview. Open the link and read the rest.

GREGORY WILPERT: It’s The Real News Network. I’m Greg Wilpert, coming to you from Quito, Ecuador. The U.S. Department of Education, under the leadership of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, is halting investigations into fraudulent practices of for-profit colleges, according to a report that the New York Times released last Sunday. The Obama administration’s Education Department had placed a special team in charge of investigating false advertising, deceptive recruitment practices, and false job placement claims at for-profit colleges. One of the most prominent investigations was the DeVry Education Group, recently renamed Adtalem Global Education, which is one of the largest for-profit educational companies in the world, with nearly two billion dollars in annual revenues.

Joining me to analyze the consequences of abandoning these investigations into for-profit colleges is Bill Black. Bill is a white-collar criminologist, former financial regulator, and associate professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. He’s also the author of the book, The Best Way to Rob a Bank Is to Own One. Thanks for joining us again, Bill.

BILL BLACK: Thank you.

GREGORY WILPERT: So, one interesting aspect of the story is that Education Secretary, Betsy DeVos, hired several people from for-profit education institutions to work in the Department of Education. These include Robert Eitel, her senior counselor, Diane Auer Jones, a senior advisor on post-secondary education, and Carlos Muñiz, as the department’s general counsel. What’s going on here? Shouldn’t these appointments be considered conflict of interest and ring all kinds of ethics bills?

BILL BLACK: So first, ten seconds of personal privilege to welcome into the world, three hours ago, Heidi Weaver, our new granddaughter. Second, I made the easiest prediction of my life, after Trump was elected, that Warren Harding and Ulysses Grant could rest easy in the history books because there would no longer be a debate about the most corrupt administration in U.S. history. It would clearly be the Trump administration. There’s been a lot of focus on Scott Pruitt over at the EPA, in terms of corruption. But Betsy DeVos is giving him a consistent run for the money, just more under the radar.

So, here’s the background. First, out of the great financial crisis of 2008, one of the extraordinary things was that the most devastated people, in terms of loss of wealth, were not folks without college degrees, but actually folks with college degrees, who were either Latinx or Black. If you were Latinx, your average loss of wealth during the financial crisis, if you had a college degree, was nearly eighty percent. And it was roughly sixty percent if you were Black. That reversed the pattern for whites, where if you had a college degree, your percentage loss of wealth was lower than whites who had no college degree.

Now, part of that, of course, is the mortgage markets- being put into predatory mortgages at the worst possible time, at the peak of the bubble. But another thing, major thing, in terms of Blacks and Latinos, is that they are- disproportionately, they go to for-profit universities. And for-profit universities, characteristically- and this isn’t just recently, this goes back to World War II era, just after World War II when for-profit colleges first became a substantial deal.

And here’s the triple-whammy you get. One, they are much more expensive than regular universities. Two, you get a- statistically, a much, much worse education. That means your prospects in terms of jobs are far worse. And third, you’re left in massive debt because of the combination of the first two things. So that, instead of being the route to success, it is, as those overall statistics I cited, been an enormously good way of losing extraordinary amount of wealth between the mortgage markets and these for-profit universities.

So, long before the Obama administration came in, people have been writing about the really high incidents of fraud in these for-profit universities. The GAO actually sent undercover investigators that pretended to be people applying for college, which is, of course, really easy to send in testers of that kind. In every single case- so, I think they send them into the eight largest. In every single case, the supposed student was induced to do something that would be a false representation, which is to say, a crime.

In three of the eight cases, at least, the college counselor for the for-profit university consciously, expressly told them to lie and how to lie. Subsequent investigations under the Obama administration have documented the widespread layers of fraud, and for-profit universities have finally begun to experience what they should, which is that it’s very difficult- it’s more difficult to con people, and the government was finally cracking down. And that was- the problem was finally being reduced, and indeed there was some remedy at the federal level.

Because, after all, these are students had been induced by fraud to get into situations where they were literally driven bankrupt by the combination of expenses, debts, and limited increased employment prospects. And as viewers will, I hope, remember, the Republicans changed the bankruptcy laws so that student debt is not dischargeable in bankruptcy. So this, you know, is a cloud that stays over your entire life if it forces you into bankruptcy, from which you make never economically recover.

So, finally there was some recognition at the federal level that it was completely inappropriate to allow these entities to drive you bankrupt through what had been fraudulent misrepresentations to the students. And all for-profit universities live- I mean, and I mean almost totally live on federal grants to the students for education. Without those federal grants, no major chain of for-profit universities could exist. So, we’re really subsidizing all of these fraudulent entities through federal grants. And you would think an administration that A, promised to drain the swamp, and B, to stop these kind of rip-offs of the public sector, would crack down. But of course, none of us is surprised at this point to learn that it’s exactly the opposite.

The metaphor usually used is that DeVos has put the fox in charge of the chicken coop. But it’s really more- the way these for-profit universities operate, it’s more like you would put the vampires in charge of the blood bank, because they are basically sopping up the lifeblood of middle and working-class, and even poor people, through this device of the for-profit fraudulent rip-offs. And Betsy DeVos is now ensuring that the vampires can do this with absolute impunity from the laws.

Aaron Ament wrote an article in the New York Times about the U.S. Department of Education’s abandonment of students who were defrauded by predatory for-profit colleges. Ament worked on these issues during the Obama administration.

“In 2016, after years of broken promises, deceptive recruiting practices and exponential growth in the for-profit college sector, things seemed to be changing for the better.

“Spurred by the creation of a unit in the Department of Education devoted to cracking down on predatory institutions, and the announcement of new protections for students, some of the biggest names in the industry voluntarily ended some of their most egregious practices or shut down, while others reached sweeping settlements with the government.

“Today, that investigative unit, which I helped create, is virtually dead. Its members have largely been assigned to other tasks by an Education Department that includes an alarming number of executives from those very same for-profit schools.

“The unit is the latest casualty of an administration that seems to think that big corporations need protection from consumers, rather than the other way around….

“In 2013, I took a job as a lawyer for the Education Department. Soon after, I started working with the California attorney general’s office to investigate fraud at Corinthian Colleges, based in Santa Ana.

“We learned the situation was worse than could be imagined at this publicly traded for-profit chain, which at the time was the beneficiary of more than $1 billion a year in federal student loans and grants.

“We heard of students recruited out of homeless shelters with false promises of jobs, and of others stashed in temporary jobs for less than a week so that the school could include them in the job placement rate it had to disclose to regulators and prospective students.

“These students would go on to amass student loan debt that their bleak job prospects would never help them repay….

“In 2013, I took a job as a lawyer for the Education Department. Soon after, I started working with the California attorney general’s office to investigate fraud at Corinthian Colleges, based in Santa Ana.

“We learned the situation was worse than could be imagined at this publicly traded for-profit chain, which at the time was the beneficiary of more than $1 billion a year in federal student loans and grants.

“We heard of students recruited out of homeless shelters with false promises of jobs, and of others stashed in temporary jobs for less than a week so that the school could include them in the job placement rate it had to disclose to regulators and prospective students.

“These students would go on to amass student loan debt that their bleak job prospects would never help them repay….

“Consider what happened at the for-profit DeVry University. Murray Hastie, an Iraq war veteran suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, was aggressively recruited by DeVry. Mr. Hastie was told that his G.I. Bill benefits would cover all of his tuition, in addition to giving him a monthly living stipend.

“However, he later learned DeVry was saddling him with more than $50,000 in student loans. When his P.T.S.D. worsened, Mr. Hastie left the school and sought treatment at a V.A. hospital. After leaving the hospital, he recounted in a forthcoming documentary, “Fail State,” he tried to enroll at his local community college, but found that all of his G.I. benefits had been exhausted….

“After Ms. DeVos took over, she hired several executives from the same for-profit institutions that the department was investigating. Former employees of Bridgepoint Education and Career Education Corporation, which both run for-profit colleges that were reportedly under investigation, are now working for her. Investigations into those colleges seem to have been dropped. A former DeVry dean supervised the very unit that is now being dismantled.

“At the same time, Secretary DeVos is also trying to bar students and state attorneys general from suing for-profit student loan servicers. And at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Mick Mulvaney has weakened the office assigned to protect students from financial abuse.

“Predatory colleges are being given a green light to return to their abusive ways. The message to millions of Americans lured by the false promises of predatory companies is clear: The Trump administration is not on your side.”

The U.S. Education Department’s accreditation advisory committee will discuss the conversion of for-profit colleges to non-profit status at a meeting from May 22-24. The chair of the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI) is Art Keiser, the chancellor and CEO of Keiser University. This Florida-based school converted from for-profit to non-profit status in 2011, which is the subject of the discussion. Some Senate Democrats, led by Senator Elizabeth Warren, have urged that he recuse himself, since he obviously has a conflict of interest. Secretary DeVos will decide whether he does. Or will he have the decency to do it himself? What could possibly be dubious about a college headed by its founder and namesake?

Keiser for many years was the face of for-profit higher education, even chaired the for-profit’s lobbying group in D.C., and now he in charge of regulating the industry? What a bad joke Betsy DeVos has pulled on the nation. Keiser led the way in converting his own namesake institution from for-profit to non-profit, but the Miami Herald reported that it was still lucrative.

Robert Shireman of the Century Foundation developed a very informative and important graphic about the sham of converting colleges from for-profit to non-profit. You should see it. The link is at the end of this post.

In his email to me, he noted the similarities between ostensibly non-profit charters that are actually managed by a for-profit, and “colleges” that convert to non-profit status yet remain for profit in fact.

He makes the following points:

1. The abuses of students and taxpayers have occurred predominantly at for-profit colleges.

2. That’s because removing investors from power positions in schools (being nonprofit) reduces the incentives for exploitative and predatory practices.

3. For-profit colleges want the “nonprofit” label but without properly separating profit from corporate control.

He adds, “These problems keep recurring over history. NACIQI’s leadership is needed to assure that nonprofits, at least, are safe for students and taxpayers.”

But, can NACIQI regulate these institutions, as it is supposed to do, when its chair heads an institution that is an exemplar of the institutions under investigation?

Read the report here.

This is a scandal.

When Betsy DeVos was appointed as Secretary of Education, she held investments in the for-profit higher education sector, which is known for fraud, high attrition, and low graduation rates. Presumably, she divested, but it is not clear whether she did.

Now she has turned over the job of revising regulations of the for-profit colleges to former high-level executives from the same sector.

Does anyone doubt that their mission is to remove all constraints on these quasi-criminal enterprises that have defrauded millions of students and gotten away scot-free?

Education Department adviser Robert Eitel, hired by the Trump administration last February after four years in the for-profit college industry, played a role in suspending an Obama-era policy known as “borrower defense to repayment.” The rule made it easier for students, enticed into taking out five-figure loans on promises that they would get good jobs, to file for debt relief. It also allowed the government to recoup the losses from the schools.

Ultimately, those potentially most impacted include many predominantly low-income, and minority students disproportionately represented at for-profit colleges and often saddled with high student loans and facing poor job prospects.

Education policy changes involving for-profit colleges has been a touchy subject since Secretary Betsy DeVos, who entered office with investments tied to the for-profit college sector, took over the department following Trump’s election.

The revelations about Eitel’s engagement in borrower defense policy come on the heels of a New York Times report that the department has been dismantling a team investigating widespread abuses by for-profit colleges. Education spokeswoman Liz Hill told the Times the group shrunk because of attrition and said no new hires with ties to the for-profit college industry had influenced the group’s work.

Eitel, who had also worked as an Education Department attorney under President George W. Bush, isn’t the only for-profit college executive DeVos has brought into the Department. The secretary also drew ire when she tapped Julian Schmoke, Jr., a former dean at the for-profit college DeVry, to lead the department’s Student Aid Enforcement Unit last August.

There’s no indication Schmoke was involved in the delay of the borrower defense rule.

Eitel — a former vice president at two for-profit college operators, Bridgepoint Education and Career Education Corp. — joined the Trump administration in February as part of a so-called “beachhead team” formed to usher the agency through the transition.

For two months, he worked at the Education Department while on unpaid leave from Bridgepoint, according to financial disclosure forms. He formally gave up his position at Bridgepoint in April, when he was hired on a permanent basis as a senior adviser to DeVos.

Although Education Departments ethics officials maintain working on borrower defense wouldn’t have violated his ethics agreement, Eitel has up until now refused to say publicly whether he had a hand in the borrower defense delay.

Eitel’s Involvement in Borrower Defense

On June 14, DeVos announced she was suspending the borrower defense rule, arguing that under the rule, “all one had to do was raise his or her hands to be entitled to so-called free-money.”

Emails obtained by the executive branch watchdog group Democracy Forward and shared with ABC News show in the days leading up to the announcement, Eitel circulated borrower defense talking points to staffers, edited background documents, and even signed off on the official delay notice.

This is a classic case of the fox guarding the henhouse. Or worse.

Is this Trump University’s Revenge?

Betsy DeVos has broken up the team investigating fraud at for-profit colleges. To neutralize the investigation, she appointed a veteran of a for-profit college to lead the team.

Question: Why is she protecting the fraudsters instead of the students?