Over-regulation and a lot of negative publicity hurt an industry that should be thriving in the current economy. Herb Greenberg poured gasoline on the fire and Arnie Duncan fanned the flames. Student loan debt load is a big witch hunt. Student loan debt and associated defaults pale in comparison with some of the other government boondoggles committed by this administration. For the money that was poured into Solyndra, they could have forgiven almost all student loan debt. All I hear about these days is the need for education and hiring more teachers. Pure hypocrisy.
The negative press is ill placed on these "for profit stocks". Sure they make money and students take out loans--some not repaid. But how do you think state and private college students cover their college costs...of course, they take out loans--and some are not repaid. To put "for profit" colleges in the spotlight and make them out to be almost illegal is irresponsible by political "leaders" and the media as well. Hopefully the worm will turn.
Fully agree with you. Why doesn't this corrupt administration look into public funding for universities who are not finding jobs for their graduates as well. I have known people who graduated from ITT and have done well. I also know for a fact that some of the recruiting techniques this woman from Southern California stated, who was a manager at ITT testified to congress were outright lies.
Obama is a socialist who wants to destroy this country. God help us.
You bring up a great question. Why doesn't Harkin, his democratic cronies, Obama and the DOE look at all of education, including the not-for-profits. There are several good answers to this - all of which stink to high heaven of the worst in politics.
1. The democrats are being funneled tons of campaign contributions by the hedge funds that are short the education sector. Pay to play.
2. Any inclusion of all schools would immediately show that less than 50% of ALL students from ALL schools (whether for profit or not for profit) fail to graduate college within six years. This statistic totally blows the democrats thesis that the for profits are abusing students as evidenced by low graduation rates. The not for profits are basically the same as the for profits on this measure.
3. Examination of the not-for-profit sector would clearly have to single out the worst performing schools. This is completely untenable for the democrats as the worst not-for-profit schools are the ones that focus on minorities, particularly blacks and Hispanics. Their graduation and other statistics are really really bad. I would love to see the DOE, Obama, and Harkins criticize these schools for their performance. What a political disaster that would be. Can you see Obama denigrating any "all black" or Hispanic school? This alone precludes them from including the not-for-profit sector in their analysis. The for-profit sector should insist on a full review of all schools. As everyone knows, the for profit schools generally have a higher percentage of minority students than do the regular not-for-profit schools. It is easy for the politicians to claim that the for-profit schools are taking advantage of these minorities, etc etc, when in fact these schools are the only option available to them and the not-for-profit schools generally don't want them and those not-for-profit schools that do accept them have well below average outcomes.
4. A thorough examination of the not-for-profit education sector would show huge financial waste and a total misrepresentation of how much is spent on educating students. What a political storm that would kick up among all the rah-rah alumni. The professors are very overpaid, they hardly teach (yet their wages are included in how much a not-for-profit school spends on education), there are all sorts of massive costs in the not-for-profit sector that are supposed spent on educating students which in fact have nothing to do with educating students at all.
5. The democrats need to have "political cover" for their horrendous job policies and total failure at reducing the unemployment rate (which is especially high among the least educated and the poor). The education companies are an easy target as they must be the "ones responsible" for everyone lack of job opportunity. The sad part is getting an education is the only way for these people to improve their circumstances. The not-for-profit schools are not going to take these people. The community colleges are the really bad and the local governments can no longer offer to subsidize these schools at the taxpayers expense. Who does that leave to get the job done? The only answer is the for profit education companies. There is no one else capable or willing to do it. Nothing that Obama does to the education sector will result in any improvement of the unemployment statistics. It is all just a game of smoke and mirrors to the democrats.
In the end, it is all politics.
ITT Educational Services began in 1963 as a business started by extbook publisher Howard W. Sams. So the company has been in business operating schools successful for 50 years. This is not some fly by night operation that just came out of some scam artist's imagination. ESI has been around so long because it provides a service that people want and need and are willing to pay for.
And just exactly why should the government be forgiving any student debt? The government wasn't the ones that talked them into attending these for profit schools. Maybe the companies should be forgiving the student loans.