And this settlement only covers loans that students took out with the school directly. Any students with federal loans are still on the hook for every penny.
Edit: Source for anyone interested[1]. Federal law provides individuals with federal student loans to discharge their loans under the "borrower defense" if the students were defrauded into taking out those loans. The intent was to allow debt relief for students of for-profit institutions who are saddled with with enormous loans when the education has little or no economic benefit. On paper, the CEC students are eligible for this program but DeVos has been reluctant to allow any borrowers to take advantage of the program. It's been an ongoing legal matter.[2]
If it's been established that there was fraud, I'd think that they would have claims. If Career Education has any capital left, there's potential for a class action. And if I remember correctly, plaintiffs can demand treble damages.
Is it possible to sue the executives and investors?
Morally it seems appropriate. Execs who participated in or knew about and didn't report fraud sound like accomplices, and investors who received the proceeds of criminal activity shouldn't be able to keep those proceeds.
Clearly since a few people were able to succeed in engaging with a thouroughly corrupt system; everything is fine and there is NO NEED TO FIX ANYTHING.
> More than 90 percent of its students are enrolled through online courses, according to the company.
That's a huge number. I believe online education is going to be an important part of college education, but that's almost the entire student body. Good to see this debt being cancelled.
> The debt stems from institutional loans the company issued to students
The article makes it sound as though these weren't government loans. Are students of that institution able to tap government loans?
Bootcamps often post misleading statistics about placement numbers [0]. Will they be subject to the same fraud allegations? I would think misleading statistics are pretty much par for the course for nearly all form of sales. I generally apply by the principal of "never ask your barber if you need a haircut". These seem kind of fraud allegations seem to be arbitrarily enforced and politically motivated.
The value of a college degree has changed whether you get the degree from an Ivy League School or a diploma mill. All colleges are basically false advertising at this point. The settlement will make some politicians feel good, but the reality is the entire system needs to be overhauled.
I would dispute this, if only using personal experience. The value of my degree from CMU has paid itself back multiple times over in terms of doors opened.
Your statement feels like too broad of a brush. In my view, there’s a huge fat tail of non-value add schools that are only surviving because of this perception, but the narrow bulb of the elite schools maintains that value if only due to networking and social proof.
"We here believe that the most important thing a college can do is lift its students up and open doors for them here at the Central Minnesota School of automatic door and elevator repair. Keeping you cool under pressure is the job of our sister school, the Minnesota Institution of Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning."
Agreed, the value issue has many sides- school and degree are important factors. If we didn't have gov't subsidized loans that can't be discharged through bankruptcy the system would have naturally figured this out already.
Not surprised Ivy Leaguers make more money, but that wasn't really my point. The value of a degree is going down while the cost is going up. This is true for all schools. Why I applaud going after fraud, we need to be focusing on the bigger issue that the university system at large is unsustainable.
I'd be curious to see some data on whether or not people graduating from Harvard today make as much as people graduating 20 years ago. My guess is Harvard grads today probably make less because there are more college grads nowadays than 20 years ago.
There’s a big difference between misleading statistics and lies. If you boast a high placement rate because your program is sort of mediocre but you’re extremely selective in who you accept, well, caveat emptor. If you boast a high placement rate because you just made up nice-looking numbers, that’s fraud, and it should be.
Or don't forget about the boot camps which boast high placement rates because they hire the students that don't find outside roles to continue teaching until they find a better outside role. I find that practice deceptive especially because they are paying well under the rate they are advertising the student should earn upon graduation.
This would be a good requirement for any educational institution:
“give all prospective students a single-page disclosure with information including job placement rates, anticipated costs and the average earnings of graduates.”
This seems like a terrible idea. Colleges should be about learning. I can understand guaranteeing what skills at what proficiency should be attained, but job placement and career advancement are the result of a different process. If you want a business that studies the needs of employers, gives crash courses in those skills to build what is determined to be a desired resume, and then aggressively markets you to prospective job opportunities, that sounds valuable, but it most definitely not an educational institution.
Like it or not, the primary reason a lot of people go to school is related to desires about their future earning potential. I don't see how intentionally refusing to provide information on outcomes experienced by past students is going to benefit those people.
Not everyone goes off to an expensive school at 18. Rest assured, those institutions are going to stay available. This is about for-profits, and calling those "educational institutions" is already an arguable proposition.
I would assume graduates that obtained high paying jobs would be more likely to complete these surveys. Of course they could include how many graduates were polled and how many responded.
There is probably room for both. Some people are in it for the end result while others want to develop thenselves further. I’ve had this conversation with others before about the expectations people have of universities and universities of themselves.
A few possible purposes come to mind.
1) To train students in skills that are immediately relevant for one or more careers.
2) To train the next generation of researchers and expand the body of known knowledge through research and discovery.
3) To give students a quick but lasting foothold into the professional networks of their future peers.
There might have been a few more that I fail to recall now.
People pay a lot for college, in large part, because they expect they can pay it back with their increased earning potential afterwards. And many are wrong.
Withholding knowledge (how ironic) is not the way to correct the education system.
While I agree in spirit, I disagree in reality. The fact of the matter is, "higher level education" has been co-opted by industry to train employees. I think overall it's a round-about way to train employees and we should break apart the concept of higher education/training into discrete parts: apprenticeships and academics. The problem for me is that college is a one-size-fits-all solution for the US and I think we are starting to see it burst at the seams.
I mean we can't even agree on the purpose of college, how can we possibly optimize the institution if we cannot answer that question?
I agree that there are two distinct segments, one which is more vocational, and one that is more academic, modeled off a classic liberal arts education.
Perhaps on the vocational side, it is easier to determine exit level salaries and trajectories. However, I am not quite sure that is the same case with an institution offering a liberal arts education. For instance, when I graduated from Dartmouth, 20% of the student body majored in Economics or Government, and in less than 10 years, 20% of major are either CS of Engineering. I don't think it is that easy to extrapolate the likely salaries and career outcomes in these cases.
How many people in a CS or engineering program aren't treating the education as vocational? Or someone taking a poly-Sci or philosophy bachelor's with plans of law school? Those are all students who are taking what is, in effect, a vocational course. They need a particular set of skills for a particular job, and they DGAF about broadening themselves.
There were definitely students in my CS classes who were genuinely interested in the academic topics, but most of the people in my compilers class seemed to think it was just something to suffer through.
> How many people in a CS or engineering program aren't treating the education as vocational?
In my experience at an R1 university (not an Ivy, but still respectable), even before the latest tech bubble, very few undergrad and master's CS students saw it as anything but vocational. However, they were a nice source of profit for the department, especially the international ones, so everyone went along.
I’m inclined to agree. The way to make that happen is to figure out some superior proxy for the characteristics employers are looking for (intelligence, diligence, willingness to conform, etc.) than university degrees. When the signaling value of a degree is no longer necessary, colleges will be truly optional and so for and about learning.
However, it should be noted the implications are fairly radical. A college system for and about learning about is going to be much much smaller than the status quo. Which in turn means either much less research output or some other method of funding research has to be found.
I agree that it’s weird for an educational institution to have to do this but it seems logical for a for-profit that is actively marketing with basically made-up numbers about costs, placement rates, etc to be held accountable for this.
If your students expect they will get a job because you said so, and expect it to cost 30K, there should be some truth to those claims. They shouldn’t end up unplaced and 100K in debt if you effectively made guarantees in your marketing / sales materials. The same is true for investment firms. You can’t promise 50% returns.
At least in my country, there are two main camps on college funding.
The first camp believes education shouldn't focus on graduate earnings, and shouldn't cost anything.
The second camp believes student fees are unfortunate-but-currently-unavoidable, and so long as they're in place we should ensure students make informed, rational decisions before taking on a lifetime of debt.
> “give all prospective students a single-page disclosure with information including job placement rates, anticipated costs and the average earnings of graduates.”
do that every semester when they return to the financial aid trough, include the estimated amount they'll need to borrow after this, do all the interest calculations, show them how much they'll have left to spend after their loan payments, and include a map of the parts of the country where monthly rent is <1/2 of that amount, and make the students sign that they read it.
anyone with unlimited funds who cares about nothing but learning will gleefully take their piece of paper and sign that they got it.
everyone else can have a little momento mori moment as regards their future financial situation.
tricking those without the funds (present or future) into thinking they should ignore these issues because "omg learning" is profoundly immoral.
To be fair, I think high schools should be educating their students on this.
I don't think any other options were really presented for me (except apprenticeships).
Unfortunately it isn't really measurable except as a tick box. So all you end up getting is an appointment with the careers 'advisor', which as I recall took all of 2 minutes.
/rant
The entire premise of these (snobbish) comments seems be: if you majored in anything that is employable, then it’s “vocational”, and you really didn’t learn anything.
That’s insulting and a load of bullshit. I can only speak for EE, but it’s all theory and loaded with difficult math, physics, etc. So an English major is “educated”, but an EE education is trade school? I think the “educated” majors ought to take graduate level electromagnetics. They’d be raked over the coals.
Sometimes these issues occur in public Universities. A friend of mine took a Masters in Occupational Therapy, and their school continually advertised very high averages for OTs. The vast majority of the program staying the East Ohio/West PA area looking for jobs. The schools average was US and included much higher Cost of Living cities where salaries would be higher. When asked for local data, they had none available and claimed the data was local. Literally nobody got anywhere near that salary who stayed in the area, and none of the interviewing companies ever even offer something near that. An honest disclosure on how many people get jobs and how much they earn regionally should be required for any school, profit or non-profit.
AIU was founded in 1970 'as the American Fashion College of Switzerland'. CEC has been under investigation since the mid-2000s, and decided to close most of its schools in 2015.
Not that for-profit vocational-training schools with credibility problems are a new thing. They are 'accredited' by ten nationally recognized accrediting agencies overseen by the Dept. of Ed. It should be dismaying that schools which primarily 'serve' federally-funded DoD and GI Bill students are not held to objective claims about their efficacy.
45 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 85.8 ms ] threadEdit: Source for anyone interested[1]. Federal law provides individuals with federal student loans to discharge their loans under the "borrower defense" if the students were defrauded into taking out those loans. The intent was to allow debt relief for students of for-profit institutions who are saddled with with enormous loans when the education has little or no economic benefit. On paper, the CEC students are eligible for this program but DeVos has been reluctant to allow any borrowers to take advantage of the program. It's been an ongoing legal matter.[2]
[1]https://www.capemaycountyherald.com/news/government/article_...
[2]https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackfriedman/2018/10/17/student...
I'm guessing there isn't any capital left.
Morally it seems appropriate. Execs who participated in or knew about and didn't report fraud sound like accomplices, and investors who received the proceeds of criminal activity shouldn't be able to keep those proceeds.
Thank you for clearing that up for us.
That's a huge number. I believe online education is going to be an important part of college education, but that's almost the entire student body. Good to see this debt being cancelled.
The article makes it sound as though these weren't government loans. Are students of that institution able to tap government loans?
Bootcamps often post misleading statistics about placement numbers [0]. Will they be subject to the same fraud allegations? I would think misleading statistics are pretty much par for the course for nearly all form of sales. I generally apply by the principal of "never ask your barber if you need a haircut". These seem kind of fraud allegations seem to be arbitrarily enforced and politically motivated.
[0] https://medium.com/@abinoda/coding-bootcamp-placement-rates-...
Your statement feels like too broad of a brush. In my view, there’s a huge fat tail of non-value add schools that are only surviving because of this perception, but the narrow bulb of the elite schools maintains that value if only due to networking and social proof.
That would be awesome.
Ref: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/09/14/this-...
Also, whatever the feelings of politicians, I'm pretty sure _the people whose debt was canceled_ have a feeling or two on the matter, too.
I'd be curious to see some data on whether or not people graduating from Harvard today make as much as people graduating 20 years ago. My guess is Harvard grads today probably make less because there are more college grads nowadays than 20 years ago.
Surely you jest.
“give all prospective students a single-page disclosure with information including job placement rates, anticipated costs and the average earnings of graduates.”
Not everyone goes off to an expensive school at 18. Rest assured, those institutions are going to stay available. This is about for-profits, and calling those "educational institutions" is already an arguable proposition.
A few possible purposes come to mind.
1) To train students in skills that are immediately relevant for one or more careers.
2) To train the next generation of researchers and expand the body of known knowledge through research and discovery.
3) To give students a quick but lasting foothold into the professional networks of their future peers.
There might have been a few more that I fail to recall now.
People pay a lot for college, in large part, because they expect they can pay it back with their increased earning potential afterwards. And many are wrong.
Withholding knowledge (how ironic) is not the way to correct the education system.
While I agree in spirit, I disagree in reality. The fact of the matter is, "higher level education" has been co-opted by industry to train employees. I think overall it's a round-about way to train employees and we should break apart the concept of higher education/training into discrete parts: apprenticeships and academics. The problem for me is that college is a one-size-fits-all solution for the US and I think we are starting to see it burst at the seams.
I mean we can't even agree on the purpose of college, how can we possibly optimize the institution if we cannot answer that question?
Perhaps on the vocational side, it is easier to determine exit level salaries and trajectories. However, I am not quite sure that is the same case with an institution offering a liberal arts education. For instance, when I graduated from Dartmouth, 20% of the student body majored in Economics or Government, and in less than 10 years, 20% of major are either CS of Engineering. I don't think it is that easy to extrapolate the likely salaries and career outcomes in these cases.
There were definitely students in my CS classes who were genuinely interested in the academic topics, but most of the people in my compilers class seemed to think it was just something to suffer through.
In my experience at an R1 university (not an Ivy, but still respectable), even before the latest tech bubble, very few undergrad and master's CS students saw it as anything but vocational. However, they were a nice source of profit for the department, especially the international ones, so everyone went along.
I’m inclined to agree. The way to make that happen is to figure out some superior proxy for the characteristics employers are looking for (intelligence, diligence, willingness to conform, etc.) than university degrees. When the signaling value of a degree is no longer necessary, colleges will be truly optional and so for and about learning.
However, it should be noted the implications are fairly radical. A college system for and about learning about is going to be much much smaller than the status quo. Which in turn means either much less research output or some other method of funding research has to be found.
Just be careful with stats. They are easily gamed.
If your students expect they will get a job because you said so, and expect it to cost 30K, there should be some truth to those claims. They shouldn’t end up unplaced and 100K in debt if you effectively made guarantees in your marketing / sales materials. The same is true for investment firms. You can’t promise 50% returns.
The first camp believes education shouldn't focus on graduate earnings, and shouldn't cost anything.
The second camp believes student fees are unfortunate-but-currently-unavoidable, and so long as they're in place we should ensure students make informed, rational decisions before taking on a lifetime of debt.
do that every semester when they return to the financial aid trough, include the estimated amount they'll need to borrow after this, do all the interest calculations, show them how much they'll have left to spend after their loan payments, and include a map of the parts of the country where monthly rent is <1/2 of that amount, and make the students sign that they read it.
anyone with unlimited funds who cares about nothing but learning will gleefully take their piece of paper and sign that they got it.
everyone else can have a little momento mori moment as regards their future financial situation.
tricking those without the funds (present or future) into thinking they should ignore these issues because "omg learning" is profoundly immoral.
Unfortunately it isn't really measurable except as a tick box. So all you end up getting is an appointment with the careers 'advisor', which as I recall took all of 2 minutes. /rant
Allow students to test out of any required course. Require classes to be priced and offered individually.
The entire premise of these (snobbish) comments seems be: if you majored in anything that is employable, then it’s “vocational”, and you really didn’t learn anything.
That’s insulting and a load of bullshit. I can only speak for EE, but it’s all theory and loaded with difficult math, physics, etc. So an English major is “educated”, but an EE education is trade school? I think the “educated” majors ought to take graduate level electromagnetics. They’d be raked over the coals.
/rant
In the UK, most move away from home to study, and then move away from their University to work.
Anecdotally I don't know a single person who studied at University and works near their hometown.
For many it's the main reason they study. To get out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Technical_University
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American%20InterContinental%20U...
AIU was founded in 1970 'as the American Fashion College of Switzerland'. CEC has been under investigation since the mid-2000s, and decided to close most of its schools in 2015.
Not that for-profit vocational-training schools with credibility problems are a new thing. They are 'accredited' by ten nationally recognized accrediting agencies overseen by the Dept. of Ed. It should be dismaying that schools which primarily 'serve' federally-funded DoD and GI Bill students are not held to objective claims about their efficacy.