IBJNews

For-profit colleges lose incentive to target vets under bills

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

For-profit colleges would lose a financial incentive to enroll soldiers and veterans under U.S. Senate and House bills aimed at curbing what sponsors call aggressive marketing of subpar programs.

For-profit colleges such as Apollo Group Inc. can get as much as 90 percent of their revenue from federal financial-aid programs.

Carmel-based ITT Educational Services Inc., one of the country's largest for-profit education providers, received $99 million in veterans' education benefits in the most recent academic year, according to a Senate report. 

Eight for-profit college companies received about $626 million in veterans’ education benefits in the most recent academic year. The eight include Phoenix-based Apollo Group Inc., which owns University of Phoenix, the largest chain by enrollment; and Pittsburgh-based Education Management Corp., the second-biggest.

Apollo received $133 million in veterans’ education benefits, the report said.Education Management got $113 million.

Schools solicit troops partly because their government-tuition programs are excluded from that cap. Under bills being introduced Wednesday by two Democrats, Delaware Senator Thomas Carper and California Congresswoman Jackie Speier, that money would count toward the limit.

Richard Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Senate Democrat, and Tom Harkin, the Iowa Democrat who’s chairman of the Senate education committee, sponsored a similar bill in January that would lower the total amount colleges could receive from government programs to 85 percent.

The law should be changed to protect taxpayers and current and former military members, according to a summary of the Senate bill. For-profit colleges and John Kline, the Minnesota Republican who chairs the House education committee, have said such aid restrictions would reduce educational access for veterans who have been neglected by traditional schools.

“We have a responsibility to our taxpayers, our service members and our veterans to make sure that when our warriors start their new career as students, that they aren’t subjected to unfair or abusive practices while using the benefits they worked so hard to earn,” Carper, who chairs the Senate subcommittee on federal financial management, said in a prepared statement.

Congress enacted the cap on federal aid to for-profit colleges as an antifraud provision, so that students — or employers who paid for their continuing education — were investing some of their own money in the tuition. Before 1998, the law had an 85-percent cap.

Congress, the Education Department, Justice Department and state attorneys general are scrutinizing the sales practices and student-loan default rates of for-profit colleges, which received almost $32 billion in federal grants and loans in the 2009-2010 school year.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Face It
    The facts are there for all to see. There are private companies that milk the federally funded education system by dumping butts into the seats of their schools. On the reverse side, the agencies that monitor these various schools does a very poor job of verification and control of these "fly by night" schools. While it is true that qualified and well managed operations, such as ITT do provide qualified training, the system that s currently in place is broken, and the Congress and Senate is helping the industry police itself.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT