Why is it that administration after administrAtion in Washington wants to blame everyone else for their failures? If you are graduating students from an accredited program but there are no jobs being created those students can not pay back their loans. You can not stimulate a productive economy by continuing to crate government jobs. That takes capital away from markets and does not work. The Democrats like to say supply side economics doesn't work but we managed to have almost a 30 year bull market. I would. All that a success. It would still be going strong except that we went to far with deregulation and now we are compounding the problem. I have had enough with Harvard and Yale educated idiots. They do not reflect the views of working America and most if not all these clowns have not worked an honest day in their life.
A bull market and the economy have a pretty poor correlation. Supply side doesnt work. Take a look at the DJIA from 1964 to 1981, you will see it went now where, while the GDP in the US was up 5 times.
LOOK AT THE NUMBERS AND FACTS, not anecdotes put out by biased right wingers like Larry Kudlow.
I went to University of Wisconsin - More S&P 500 CEOs than Harvard. I still disagree with you.
The problem is the inflated claims made by the enrollent counselors at these for profit schools like UOP, DEVRY, KAPLAN, ITT and others. They tell students that they have a 92% to 97% job placement rate and virtually guarantee that students will find work within 6 months after graduation with salaries of at least $45,000. Of course this is total bull.
How do I know? Because I fell for their sales pitch too. It is total b.s.
Stop feeling sorry for these guys. The schools and their pitchmen are just as much to blame for the "bubble that popped" as the shysters in the subprime mortgage industry.
I am glad that Obama has the testicles to do something about it. Obviously the previous administration did not.
Well the thing about for-profit businesses of any kind is that they are faced with the reality of market forces that punish them for bad business practices. Should this become a big enough issue (counselors exaggerating employment prospects), students would figure this out and not enroll in these programs.
Currently, the programs produce enough value to prevent a mass student exodus. The bottom line is that these types of programs are generally valuable for an undereducated, underskilled American population that needs varied skillsets to uplift it during these tough economic times.
Ironically, one of the hedge fund's cases for shorting educational stocks is that they believe improving employment will deter people from enrolling. However, this lower-enrollment, better job prospect scenario would appear to resolve issues of being able to pay back loans (one of their other cases for shorting). They are clearly just looking for reasons to push the stocks down.
At the end of the day, for-profit education is a sustainable business model. However, they will need to place an emphasis on quality and measurable results (e.g. employment) if they are to remain as profitable as they have been.