IBJNews

Senator to probe spending at for-profit colleges

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Sen. Tom Harkin, chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, said he plans to hold hearings to examine the surge in federal grants and loans flowing to for-profit colleges in the U.S.

The committee will probe the “rapid growth of federal investment” in the industry and “the corresponding opportunities and risks for students and taxpayers,” Harkin, an Iowa Democrat, said in a statement Thursday on his website.

Apollo Group Inc.’s University of Phoenix, ITT Educational Services Inc., Career Education Corp. and other for-profit educators are under increasing federal scrutiny over their recruitment practices and the level of student loan defaults. President Barack Obama’s administration is proposing tougher regulation of the companies because of concern that recruiters are signing up unqualified students and leaving them with loans they may be unable to repay. For-profit colleges receive more than $20 billion a year in federal student grants and loans, Harkin said in his statement. The hearings are scheduled to begin June 24 in Washington.

“We need to ensure for-profit colleges are working well to meet the needs of students and not just shareholders,” Harkin said. “We owe it to students and taxpayers to make sure these dollars are being well spent.”

The number of students attending for-profit colleges in the U.S. rose to 1.8 million in 2008, from 550,000 in 1998, according to Harkin’s statement. One in five students who left a for-profit college in 2007 defaulted on the loan within three years, Harkin said, citing U.S. Department of Education statistics.

For-profit institutions are making advances in postsecondary education, said Harris Miller, president of the Washington-based Career College Association, which represents more than 1,400 for-profit colleges, in a statement today.

“These hearings will give our inclusive educational institutions an opportunity to address myths with facts and figures.”

For-profit colleges cater to lower-income and minority students, and higher default rates reflect graduates’ socioeconomic backgrounds rather than the colleges the students attend, according to a study released April 2 by the industry association.

The for-profit colleges are lobbying against the Education Department’s proposed rule changes, which are expected to be issued for public comment as soon as next week. The regulations would cut federal aid to for-profit colleges whose students have starting salaries that make it difficult to repay their federal loans. The government would also tighten restrictions on tying recruiters’ pay to the number of students enrolled.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

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. "bike lanes, specialized lighting, decorative signage, public art, grass medians, trees and rain gardens" These are all nice things to have, but can we freaking get the hundreds of potholes all over the city fixed first?!?!?!!?!?!

  2. When a criminal with multiple prior convictions serves five days of a one year sentence and later kills a police officer with a weapon illegally in his posession, residents of Boone County need to pay a tax to drive to work... PERFECT Progressive logic.. If, on the other hand, a fund were to be set up to build more prisons and hire more guards to keep the known criminals off the streets, I'd be the first to contribute.

  3. Not a word about how much the taxpayers will be ripped off on this deal. Crime spirals out of control and the the social problems that cause it go unheeded by an administration that does not give a rats behind about the welfare of our citizens. There is no money for police or plowing snow (remember last winter) or or or or, but spend on a sports complex, and the cash flows out of the taxpayers pockets. This city is SICK

  4. Sounds like a competitor just wanted to cause a problem. I would think as long as they are not "selling" the alcohol to the residents it is no different than if I serve wine to dinner guests. With all the violent crime happening I would think they should turn their attention to real criminals. Let these older residents enjoy what pleasures they can. Then again those boozed up residents may pose a danger to society.

  5. Where did the money go from the 2007 Income tax increase for public safety that the Mayor used to stir opposition and win the election and then failed to repeal (although he promised he would when he was running for election)? Where did the money go from the water utility sale? Where did the money go from the parking meter deal? Why does the money have all these funds for TIF deals and redevelopment of Mass avenue, and subsidy for luxury high rises, parking garages in Broad Ripple, and granola chain grocery stores but can not find the money to take care of public safety. Commuters shouldn't have to pay the tax of failed leadership in Marion County by leaders that commuters have no say in electing. Taxation without representation.

ADVERTISEMENT