New bill targeting for profit schools

[RGirl]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Thoughts some of your may be interested in this new bill being introduced "that would prohibit for-profit colleges from using taxpayer-funded financial aid for marketing, recruiting or advertising purposes":
http://www.salon.com/2012/06/20/wiping_out_for_profit_schools/

I'm assuming this may have implications for our good friends Argosy et al...

 

[JeyRo]

Thoughts some of your may be interested in this new bill being introduced "that would prohibit for-profit colleges from using taxpayer-funded financial aid for marketing, recruiting or advertising purposes":
http://www.salon.com/2012/06/20/wiping_out_for_profit_schools/

I'm assuming this may have implications for our good friends Argosy et al...

I don't get it. Money is fungible. What if the for-profit takes taxpayer money to pay all their non-prohibited operating expenses and then uses other, non-taxpayer money that's freed up in order to pay for marketing, recruiting, etc.? How would you ban that?

Another example of trying to solve problems caused by government with more government, IMHO.

 

[KillerDiller]

I don't get it. Money is fungible. What if the for-profit takes taxpayer money to pay all their non-prohibited operating expenses and then uses other, non-taxpayer money that's freed up in order to pay for marketing, recruiting, etc.? How would you ban that?

What other streams of income do schools like Argosy have other than tuition money? (This is an honest question.) Obviously, with this bill they would still be able to use any tuition students pay out of pocket or with private loans. I'm just curious what percentage of their overall revenue the bill would impact.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I could be wrong, but hasn't someone posted links in the past showing/suggesting that FSPS spend HUGE amounts of money on marketing? Thus, even if they have other revenue streams, this could potentially still have an impact.

 

[Psychadelic2012]

What other streams of income do schools like Argosy have other than tuition money? (This is an honest question.)

Perhaps fees? Or books/bookstore kickbacks? Cash certification (i.e., CEU) workshops?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

There is a thread from last year(?) titled something like "PBS special on for profit universities" and it has some good posts about the HUGE % difference in endowment/other funding v. Tuition between traditional universities and the for profit businesses....err programs (not psych specific).

 

[cara susanna]

Not as drastic as I'd like, but good start.

 

[JeyRo]

I could be wrong, but hasn't someone posted links in the past showing/suggesting that FSPS spend HUGE amounts of money on marketing? Thus, even if they have other revenue streams, this could potentially still have an impact.

I'm confident the law of unintended consequences will take effect if legislation like this passes. Haven't read the legislation but there are no doubt loopholes. Starving the beast (student loan money) is the only real feasible option IMHO.

 

[eudaimonPsyD]

I wonder how many schools this bill will really target. Not sure about Argosy or some of the other "smaller" FSPS, but I'm guessing some of these schools get around this bill because they are not technically designated as a for-profit institution (for example, Alliant is a "private not-for-profit"). Maybe I am getting the terms non-profit and not-for-profit confused and there is a difference, but I would guess that at least in the psych field, this may target far less schools than would be expected.

 

[Pragma]

So does this mean that for-profit schools will no longer be able to produce high quality marketing (such as this gem below) using federal loan money?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onRCY8xoODI

What a shame! 😱

 

[dumbledoresgirl]

So does this mean that for-profit schools will no longer be able to produce high quality marketing (such as this gem below) using federal loan money?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onRCY8xoODI

What a shame! 😱

LOL, that is a shame. But if all else fails, I'll just go take her job and start selling corn dogs.

 

[JeyRo]

I wonder how many schools this bill will really target. Not sure about Argosy or some of the other "smaller" FSPS, but I'm guessing some of these schools get around this bill because they are not technically designated as a for-profit institution (for example, Alliant is a "private not-for-profit"). Maybe I am getting the terms non-profit and not-for-profit confused and there is a difference, but I would guess that at least in the psych field, this may target far less schools than would be expected.

Again, that's the thing. Be assured the bill will have loopholes. Be assured that the loopholes will be exploited heavily. Be assured that tuition will continue to inflate and the for-profits will continue to suck up federal cash as before, at least until the bubble bursts, which will be very, very bad for everyone (especially students currently in school or just recently graduating).

 

[Qwerk]

So does this mean that for-profit schools will no longer be able to produce high quality marketing (such as this gem below) using federal loan money?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onRCY8xoODI

What a shame! 😱

Hee, hee. I still remember every word of the jingle from the old Apollo College commercials from when I was a kid. Learn how far your miiiind can take youuuu...with Apollo College! You cannot imagine how hilarious it was to me when I found out that the campus was situated in the local mall, next to the food court.

We really should do some kind of top-ten "You know you're attending a for-profit school if..." list. #1: Your school has a jingle instead of a fight song.

I wonder how many schools this bill will really target. Not sure about Argosy or some of the other "smaller" FSPS, but I'm guessing some of these schools get around this bill because they are not technically designated as a for-profit institution (for example, Alliant is a "private not-for-profit"). Maybe I am getting the terms non-profit and not-for-profit confused and there is a difference, but I would guess that at least in the psych field, this may target far less schools than would be expected.

Yeah, the bill seems to target funding use rather than program quality. I would support rescinding federal tuition money from professional or technical programs that have few graduates employed in the field in which they obtained their degrees. Or from programs that have high loan default rates. Or some other measure of graduate success.

Sad case in point: one of the young clients in the GED program at which I work got a diploma/certificate/thingy from a local for-profit technical school and is now unemployed with $18,000 in debt. I would withdraw that school's federal loan eligibility in a heartbeat (and punch out its admissions officers, too).

 

[JeyRo]

Yeah, the bill seems to target funding use rather than program quality. I would support rescinding federal tuition money from professional or technical programs that have few graduates employed in the field in which they obtained their degrees. Or from programs that have high loan default rates. Or some other measure of graduate success.

I'm certain the lobbyists for the for-profit corporations probably whined like stuck pigs to their prostitutes in congr.... I mean, to their elected representatives that punishing them for low employment of their graduates is holding them hostage to larger economic forces in the market, e.g., if the economy tanks and nobody's employed, why should we be punished for it just because we take federal loan money?

I actually agree with the idea of attacking federal funding as the problem, but again, I'm utterly certain (without even looking at it) that this bill is riddled with loopholes that the for-profits can exploit at their pleasure to continue to get access to the federal loan trough, exploit students, and continue to profit at the expense of tax victims.

 

[Qwerk]

I actually agree with the idea of attacking federal funding as the problem, but again, I'm utterly certain (without even looking at it) that this bill is riddled with loopholes that the for-profits can exploit at their pleasure to continue to get access to the federal loan trough, exploit students, and continue to profit at the expense of tax victims.

Here's the text of the bill. It's just as loophole-y as you guessed. http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/marketingbill.pdf

It provides no mechanism for investigating whether a college has violated the law other than stipulating that every college that receives federal funds should report its marketing expenditures to Congress. Hagan seems to have at least tried to write it comprehensively, and spends a couple of paragraphs trying to define what constitutes a recruitment/marketing employee. I'm guessing the colleges will just reclassify these employees and keep on hiring thousands of them unless the spirit of the law is actually enforced.