( en | de | ru )

 

  2. user
  3. @prophe
  4. Mar2017

bookmarks  76

  •  

    Alums of a disgraced for-profit college chain have spent years trying to cancel their federal student loans. For three years in federal court, the Obama Department of Education told them to keep on paying. Improbably, the Trump administration is poised to say differently. Under a preliminary accord, the federal government would invite tens of thousands of former students, who more than 20 years ago attended beauty and secretarial schools owned by defunct Wilfred American Education Corp., to petition the Education Department to cancel their unpaid debt and receive refunds on past payments, according to four people familiar with the case, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were discussing confidential settlement negotiations. The applications are almost certain to be approved, these people said, and the government would foot the bill. The deal-which is not complete and may change-would resolve a 2014 class-action lawsuit against the Education Department brought by seven former Wilfred students who claimed the feds for decades had been wrongfully collecting on debt that students needn't repay. Federal law allows borrowers to cancel their loans when their schools violate certain rules, and Wilfred routinely flouted the law by falsely certifying that its students were eligible for government loans, according to the complaint. The lawsuit claimed the department knew the loans were eligible to be forgiven, yet it made no effort to inform debtors of this right. If finalized, the settlement would represent one of the largest debt-forgiveness schemes undertaken by the Education Department. That it didn't happen under Obama, who championed student debt relief measures, and instead could happen under Trump, who in November agreed to pay $25 million to settle several lawsuits tied to his own foray into for-profit education, could upend expectations that a Trump-overseen Education Department would favor the interests of for-profit schools over those of allegedly defrauded students. Jim Margolin, a spokesman f
    7 years ago by @prophe
     
      Mar2017USADonald_TrumpObamaEnglish
      copydelete
       
       
    •  

      President Trump’s postelection agreement to pay $25 million appeared to settle the fraud claims arising from his defunct for-profit education venture, Trump University. But a former student is now asking to opt out of the settlement, a move that, if permitted, could put the deal in jeopardy. Lawyers for the student, Sherri Simpson of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., on Monday asked a federal judge in San Diego to reject the settlement unless former students are given an opportunity to be excluded from the deal so they can sue Mr. Trump individually. If the judge, Gonzalo Curiel, decides that Ms. Simpson and potentially others should have that chance, legal experts say it could disrupt the settlement because Mr. Trump and his lawyers saw the deal as a way to resolve all of the claims, once and for all, to avoid a trial and distractions to his presidency. “If even one person could opt out of the settlement and force a trial, that might, in fact, crater the deal,” said Shaun Martin, a professor at the University of San Diego School of Law. “I’m sure Judge Curiel will be aware of that.” The agreement, announced in November, appeared to resolve years of hotly contested litigation, including two federal class-action cases in San Diego and a separate suit by Eric T. Schneiderman, the New York attorney general. Students maintained that they were cheated out of tuition through high-pressure sales tactics and misleading claims about what they would learn. At one point during the contentious case, Mr. Trump questioned Judge Curiel’s impartiality based on his Mexican heritage. Mr. Trump, who has rejected the claims and did not acknowledge fault in the settlement, posted on Twitter after the settlement announcement that he “did not have the time to go through a long but winning trial on Trump U.” Patrick Coughlin, a lawyer representing the class-action plaintiffs, said that it was a “terrific settlement” and that the objection seemed “politically motivated.” He said he feared that the objection could result in delays for students
      7 years ago by @prophe
       
        for-profitMar2017sueUSADonald_TrumpclosureEnglish
        copydelete
         
         
      •  

        Remember when candidate Trump promised to make college affordable for everyone? Yeah, that’s not happening.  Instead, Trump is turning to the notorious corporateers who have been pouring McDiplomas on the nation’s steaming trillion-dollar student debt pyre to shake up higher education. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos’s controversial pick for a special assistant—for-profit college corporate lawyer Robert Eitel, may be a portent. As counsel for Bridgepoint, the parent company of the now-tainted brands of Ashford University and University of the Rockies, was forced by the Obama administration last year to refund $24 million in tuition and debt costs to students, plus civil damages, after the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau found that its heavy marketing scheme for its online programs, and “deceived its students into taking out loans that cost more than advertised.” Bridgepoint is just one player in a sector of for-profit institutions that are known for exploiting millions in federal loans and grants, providing substandard academics and granting worthless diplomas. While many companies were reined in by regulators under Obama, the industry as a whole has survived, and is now poised for revival under Trump. In fact, even those companies penalized for defrauding students have not been held fully accountable over federal student debts; Bridgepoint’s sanction, for example, did not encompass federal loans, even though graduates are typically chained to about $33,000 in taxpayer-subsidized debt. But the for-profit college companies hobbled by financial crisis under Obama might see a major resurrection under Trump’s and DeVos’s deregulatory agenda. One tactic may be for belly-up for-profits to reinvent themselves as nonprofits, in order to skirt future regulations and wriggle out of liability for financial abuses. The Corinthian college chain, for example, following bankruptcy, was placed under the control of a nominal “nonprofit” called Zenith (which was later exposed for having compromising financial entangle
        7 years ago by @prophe
         
          for-profitMar2017USADonald_Trumpgrowthrise
          copydelete
           
           
        •  

          Many for-profit colleges are accused of broken promises, high prices and not preparing students for the workforce. The federal government has increased its regulation of them. It's sparking a big debate in Washington, and two of the main players are North Carolina politicians. The new chair of the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce, U.S. Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-- N.C., District 5) already said the rules need to go. The way she sees it, the Obama administration "intentionally targeted and sought to dismantle career colleges and universities with unnecessary regulations." She praised for-profit schools, calling them "responsive higher learning institutions." Action 9 investigator Jason Stoogenke found her biggest donor is a for-profit college, Full Sail. Full Sail is based in Florida and focuses on entertainment and media, offering degrees up to master's. When Stoogenke asked Foxx whether that's a conflict of interest, she emailed, "When an individual or industry offers me their support, they're endorsing my views, not the other way around." On the other side, 18 attorneys general, including North Carolina's Josh Stein, are urging the federal government not to go easy on for-profit schools. They sent the federal government a letter, saying undoing the regulations would mean "open season" on students. "We're very concerned," he said. "They're preying on people's dreams." LETTER When students can't pay back debt, taxpayers get stuck with the bill. Some wonder how much debt students rack up at for-profit colleges. The Brookings Institution created a list of 25 colleges where students are the most in debt. More than half are for-profit schools. Charlotte School of Law, DeVry, ITT Tech, Brookstone and Kaplan have all had problems in recent years, either financial, legal, or both. "It's been really hard," Charlotte Law student Stefanie Quinde said. "I understand it's a business. But at end of day, the interest of the students, it's, it's a big priority." "I think the regulat
          7 years ago by @prophe
           
            debatefor-profitArizonaMar2017English
            copydelete
             
             
          •  

            The UK government will decide whether BPP University should continue to be eligible for university title and degree-awarding powers, after its US owner was sold to a private equity consortium for $1.1 billion (£899 million). BPP, one of only three for-profit universities in the UK, saw the sale of its owner, Apollo Education Group, completed last month. The deal, which takes the company private, also includes its big US for-profit institutions, such as the University of Phoenix and Western International University. The new owners are a consortium including Vistria Group, a private equity firm run by Marty Nesbitt – a Chicago businessman sometimes described as Barack Obama’s best friend – and former US deputy education secretary Tony Miller. The consortium also includes “funds affiliated” with private equity firm Apollo Global Management, according to the Washington Post. The change of ownership for BPP comes as the UK government nears the final stages of steering through Parliament the Higher Education and Research Bill, which aims to further open England’s sector to new private and for-profit providers. While ministers believe that new providers are needed to introduce greater competition for established universities, critics believe creating more for-profit universities that can go through repeated changes in ownership may have an impact on quality for students. An independent review of BPP will now be submitted to the Higher Education Funding Council for England, including checks on whether the institution continues to meet student number and governance requirements. Hefce will, in turn, advise the Department for Education on the institution's future status. Carl Lygo, BPP's vice-chancellor, said that "nothing has changed" at the university since the sale was announced. "Neither of the new owners has any record in delivering higher education in the UK and so their plans will be carefully scrutinised by the Department for Education," Professor Lygo said. "This is not a rubber stamp process." A DfE spok
            7 years ago by @prophe
             
              BPPfor-profitMar2017UKstatusEnglish
              copydelete
               
               
            •  

              The vice-chancellor of the University of Nairobi has asked the government to review the budgetary allocation to his university after the treasury failed to meet public universities’ requisitions for the forthcoming fiscal year. The total allocation to all public universities, which is US$200 million less than the amount requested, has dashed the hopes of several institutions facing a crippling cash crunch. The government has allocated US$982 million to her public universities for the 2017-18 financial year in the budget to be unveiled in parliament on 30 March. University administrators say the allocation is over US$200 million lower than the amount they had requested for the period. At US$721 million, however, the amount is 36% higher than the allocation in the current financial year. The research and innovation kitty for public universities has been set at US$42 million, up from US$37 million – a 13% increase. However, the lower-than-expected allocation means the universities themselves will have to effect budget cuts at a time when they are facing a series of challenges. Public universities agreed last week to increase salaries for lecturers by 17.5% after a 54-day strike that paralysed the sector. The agreed increase means universities will have to seek more funds to finance the increment. Professor Peter Mbithi has asked parliament to reconsider a budget cut of US$17 million slapped on the University of Nairobi. “We acknowledge that we have been facing financial challenges like any other public entity due to declining budgetary support. We have asked parliament to review the allocation,” Mbithi told reporters two weeks ago. New funding model Defending the budget cuts to universities, treasury said they were based on the new financing model known as the differentiated unit cost model, in terms of which state funds are allocated on the basis of the courses being taught at specific universities. Under the new policy, subsidies for science courses are relatively higher than those for arts. Data shows th
              7 years ago by @prophe
               
                tuition_riseMar2017privatebudget_cutgrowth_KenyaEnglish
                copydelete
                 
                 
              •  

                The Trump administration’s plan to cut billions of dollars in research spending by eliminating indirect cost reimbursements would devastate university science, especially at public institutions, experts warned. [This is an article from The Chronicle of Higher Education, America’s leading higher education publication. It is presented here under an agreement with University World News.] The US secretary for health and human services, Tom Price, told Congress this week that the idea is to save taxpayers money while giving them the same amount of research activity. Indirect cost payments are funds spent on "something other than the research that’s being done," Dr Price told a House of Representatives subcommittee on health appropriations on Wednesday. But university representatives made clear on Thursday that it simply does not work that way. Indirect costs reflect the legitimate expenses of providing scientists with labs and complying with a host of essential services that somehow will still need to be paid, the representatives said. Under current law, a researcher who receives a federal grant to conduct research cannot simply be billed by his or her university for those costs, said Tobin L Smith, vice president for policy at the Association of American Universities, which represents major research institutions. And universities absolutely won't force students to cover the difference, Smith said. "The reality is we don't have other revenue sources to pay for those things, because let's face it, we are not going to rob tuition to pay for those costs," he said. "It just is not going to happen." It's not clear what universities would do if Congress actually accepted the administration's proposal to end indirect cost payments, said David Kennedy, director of costing policy and studies at the Council on Governmental Relations, another association of research universities and affiliated medical centres. State institutions probably would suffer first and hardest, Kennedy said, because they would have virtually no ab
                7 years ago by @prophe
                 
                  Mar2017USAresearch_grantDonald_TrumpEnglish
                  copydelete
                   
                   
                •  

                  President Donald Trump´s threat to deport millions of illegal immigrants – half of them Mexicans – has triggered an unprecedented campaign by the Mexican government and universities. A raft of measures announced in recent weeks seek to reincorporate returning migrants into the country´s education system and labour force while defending those who wish to remain in the United States. Trump has vowed to deport as many as three million illegal immigrants, with those with criminal records at the front of the queue. However, there is growing fear among the hundreds of thousands of university students and workers who are beneficiaries of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals or DACA programme – which grants temporary legal status to certain immigrants who arrived as minors – following the detention of several DACA holders in recent weeks. A recent series of menacing tweets by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, suggesting that even DACA holders could be subject to deportation, has sparked further alarm. Mexicans represent roughly 5.8 million of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States. They include an estimated 400,000 Mexicans known as Dreamers, for the proposed federal Dream Act that sought to provide legal status for young immigrants. Many have little or no support system in Mexico and some don´t even speak Spanish. In response, the Mexican government is seeking to ease the repatriation process for hundreds of thousands of migrants, particularly students. New legislation On 17 March, the Mexican Congress approved new legislation that streamlines the application process to schools and universities for returning migrants. The changes to the federal Education Law empower private colleges to revalidate transcripts from other Mexican or foreign institutions. Even more significant, students who studied abroad no longer need to present an apostille – a diplomatic notarised seal – along with their transcripts, a process that can take weeks and cost hundreds of dollars. The feder
                  7 years ago by @prophe
                   
                    returnMar2017Donald_TrumpMexicoEnglish
                    copydelete
                     
                     
                  •  

                    Comeback of for-profit medical schools brings questions of reputation, quality of education After nearly a century of dormancy, for-profit medical schools are making a return in the United States. A recent paper by University researchers analyzed the history, reappearance and possible effects that these schools could have on medical education. Though at one time for-profit medical schools existed in the United States, this changed with the publishing of Abraham Flexner’s 1910 report on the state of these schools, according to the paper. There were numerous critiques of these schools in Flexner’s report, particularly of the standards, requirements, teaching and students’ clinical and research exposure. The report led to a renovation of medical teaching and the subsequent disappearance of for-profit institutions. The medical education system accepted nearly all students who could afford to pay tuition prior to 1910, Gruppuso said. “There was no standardized set of requirements for medical schools, and it was creating a real crisis in terms of quality for medical care.” In 1996, the court case United States v. American Bar Association made it possible for for-profit law schools to be established, according to the paper. Though the Liaison Committee on Medical Education had previously been opposed to for-profit medical schools, they slowly began to change their opinions after the court case and eventually allowed for for-profit medical schools to be established in 2013. According to the paper, a number of investor-owned schools, such as the Rocky Vista University College of Osteopathic Medicine, have been accredited, and more have received preliminary and provisional accreditation. Philip Gruppuso, professor of pediatrics and an author of the paper, said the main point of the article was to bring both the existence and establishment of these for-profit schools to public attention. “(This article) sheds light on the fact that not all medical schools in the United States are nonprofit institutions, so I’m not
                    7 years ago by @prophe
                     
                      for-profitMar2017medicalUSAEnglish
                      copydelete
                       
                       
                    •  

                      The financial pressure on university students has been growing across the U.S. for several decades. At the national level, inflation-adjusted tuition and fees at a public four-year university rose 270 percent from 1977 to 2017, while the federal minimum wage fell by 24 percent. While standards of living generally rose over those 40 years, the financial pressure on university students sharply accelerated. Earlier generations were more fortunate. Summer work plus part-time work no longer enable graduation debt-free. From 2001 to 2017, tuition and fees for undergraduates at the University of Montana are up 103 percent with the CPI rising 39 percent. In 2001, a student working 40 hours for 12 weeks at the Montana minimum wage could cover 81 percent of annual tuition and fees. By 2017, even with a rise of 58 percent in the minimum wage, such summer work covered less than 63 percent. The price of textbooks is up 150 percent in the same period. Data from 2014 show 67 percent of Montana graduates with debt averaging $26,946. Whereas students may be paying their share, the state is not. Students pay more and get less. Unrestricted revenue (tuition, fees, state allocations) per full-time-equivalent student in the Montana university system in 2015 was $10,783 – second-lowest nationally. The national average was $2,100 higher, with neighboring states Idaho, North Dakota and Wyoming higher by $1,069, $3,671 and $9,550, respectively. The percentage of the total covered by student tuition in Montana was significantly higher than in neighboring states. Moreover, legislatures in 13 states with lower median household incomes (including Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Maine, New Mexico, Oklahoma and North Carolina) allocated substantially more state funds per FTE than Montana’s legislature. Montana is winning the race to the bottom. University funding in Montana lags a national field that is itself lagging. If other state university systems were healthy it would be less of a problem. Unfortunately, public hi
                      7 years ago by @prophe
                       
                        Mar2017USAthreatEnglish
                        copydelete
                         
                         

                      publications  

                        No matching posts.
                      • ⟨⟨
                      • ⟨
                      • ⟩
                      • ⟩⟩