iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

For-Profit College Stocks Soar, Indicating New Regulations Won't Hinder Industry Growth

First Posted: 06/02/2011 6:38 pm Updated: 08/02/2011 5:12 am

NEW YORK -- Amid dueling assessments of the impact of new federal rules aimed at cracking down on abuses by for-profit colleges, the stock market delivered a clear verdict: business as usual.

Shares for every publicly traded college corporation made gains on Wall Street Thursday, with share prices at many of the largest corporations, including Education Management Corp. and ITT Educational Services Inc., soaring more than 20 percent by the end of the day.

"The changes we saw this morning generally surpassed what most investors were considering likely," said Jarrel Price, an analyst who covers the for-profit education sector at Height Analytics LLC. "For the majority of the sector, programs are going to avoid what were potentially very severe restrictions on their enrollment growth."
But despite the indications from the market, there was still a geyser of rhetoric in Washington on after the Obama administration released a significantly weakened package of regulations meant to protect students from unsustainable debt burdens at for-profit colleges and career training schools.

Both industry lobbyists and student advocacy groups assailed the long-anticipated regulations from opposite ends, arguing either they were a broad government overreach or fell far short of protecting students from unscrupulous programs.
After months of delays and a multimillion-dollar lobbying campaign by well-financed higher education corporations, rules released by the Department of Education Thursday cut back on the severity of penalties that for-profit college and other career programs would face if students had poor outcomes in the marketplace.

The final rules still allow programs to remain eligible for federal student aid dollars as long as they maintain a 35 percent student loan repayment rate in one out of every three years.

The regulations have been hotly contested by the industry. And while student advocacy groups expressed major disappointment with the resulting rules, the industry's allies in Congress on Thursday continued to be highly critical of the weakened regulations.

Rep. John Kline (R-Minn.) the chairman of the House Education and Workforce Committee, said Thursday that it was "deeply troubling" that the administration would push forward with the rules. He vowed: "All options are on the table as we continue the fight to protect student choice in education."

Kline sponsored a budget amendment in February, later passed by the House, that would have prevented the administration from moving forward with the regulations this year. Others who voted in favor of that provision, including numerous House Democrats, issued statements criticizing the administration.

The rules have been in the works for two years as the Department of Education has sought to curb a rising wave of student loan defaults attributed to for-profit colleges and to protect students from programs that promise training for careers but instead lead to unmanageable debts.

Students at for-profit colleges represent 12 percent of students in higher education but are responsible for 46 percent of student loan defaults, according to Department of Education statistics.

Groups that have supported the Department of Education's push for accountability were disappointed with many of the provisions that gave programs more time to adjust.

"This is a regulation that the industry won at every turn. It's a sad day, it is a rout and it is an unconditional surrender by the administration," said Barmak Nassirian, associate executive director of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, which represents mostly non-profit colleges. "The industry is publicly continuing their lamentations and complaints. But I assure you plenty of Dom Perignon is flowing," he said.

The most notable change in Thursday's regulation as compared to a draft version released last year, is a three-strike rule that gives college programs an additional three years before they could be restricted from receiving federal student aid funds -- the lifeblood of the for-profit education industry.

Another major change eliminated provisions that would have restricted enrollment growth at institutions where students were unable to pay off their debts or had not attained a high enough salary to manage their resulting student loans. Under the draft version of the rule, programs where students were unable to pay down principal on student loans or had high debt burdens could have faced federal limitations on enrollment growth.

Consistent enrollment growth has been the linchpin of Wall Street success for most higher education companies, even though many schools have extremely high withdrawal rates. According to a 2010 Senate report, 14 out of 16 of the largest higher education companies recruited more new students for the 2009 academic year than they had for the entire 2008 year, even though net enrollment increased only 22 percent.

The final version of the rule replaces enrollment limitations with requirements that schools make certain disclosures to current and prospective students, including warnings that they could incur a high debt burden.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan said the rules were "an improvement" on the previous draft, and are aimed at giving schools time to improve.

Under the final rules, schools will not risk losing access to federal student aid dollars until 2015.

Student advocacy groups argued that three-year cushion will allow more time for legislative changes, with the Higher Education Act up for re-authorization before the rules take effect.

"The regulations allow a lot of opportunity and a lot of time," said Jose Cruz, vice president for higher education policy and practice at the Education Trust. "In a world driven by quarterly profits, three years is a lot of time to give these institutions ... to find ways to work around whatever protections have been put in place."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST BUSINESS

 
 
  • Comments
  • 105
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Epilef2000
Cafe Con Leche Party
10:56 AM on 06/04/2011
35% loan repayment!!! really..so the taxpayers will pay for the remaining 65% of the students who received sub-standard education..if any at all.

Its great to see leadership by our leaders where education is irrelevant but paying back banks is the priority.
photo
BannedInBoston
Everyone is entitled to my opinion.
10:56 PM on 06/05/2011
The education for-profit college and university students receive is NOTsubstandard. It IS overpriced, with most of the excess going to recruiters and administrators, not the people who actually teach the courses. (I know because I'm one.) Not much chance of that being remedied, although my suggestion would be to put some kind of price controls on college-level courses in general, although I know that's not politically possible.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Epilef2000
Cafe Con Leche Party
11:31 PM on 06/05/2011
Its true, the for-profit colleges are overpriced and I like the idea of price controls for college courses, though my economics professors would gasp.

As for the quality, there are some for-profit-colleges that have reputable accreditation. However, many of the for-profit-schools- have accreditation that are sub-par to the public schools and private schools accreditation, and its why many university's will not accept any credits to transfer from these colleges--so I would say that there is a great deal of sub-standard education in certain for-profit-schools (and this even happens in some non-profit schools, but nevertheless at a smaller rate).
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
olitenup
01:27 PM on 06/03/2011
As long as there is no public assistance available for student loans, I don't care.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jason Vineyard
Dem turned Repub Constitutionalist
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BuckoForce
11:33 AM on 06/03/2011
Working as a chef I see victims of cordon bleu all the time, they walk out with $60,000 of debt thinking they are going to be "super-star" chefs. Some can't even saute/cut properly, because you only get that skill through years in the trenches. Then reality hits, you have to start at the bottom usually for $10/hr...try paying back the loan on $10/hr. Much better to go to a state trade school, and walk out with no debt.
10:30 AM on 06/03/2011
The US economy has sold it's soul. When friends outside of this echo chamber called the US think of us it is a country of capitalism on steroids. We are rapidly becoming a oligarchy. Privatize the nation and pay more for a lot less.
cabinetmaker
made in USA
07:51 AM on 06/03/2011
new rules make it harder for start ups
old companies love gov help like this
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
07:26 AM on 06/03/2011
less uncertainty - can actually value these things.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
intellifran
insert clever line here...
07:10 AM on 06/03/2011
For profit? All colleges are for profit let's nto kid outselves. You have to buy the books, buy parking passes (in excess of $75 in come cases), there are out of state tuition fees and tehn ridiculous requirements that fit no where into your major (my fiance had to take composition 2 for an IT degree wtf?).
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
intellifran
insert clever line here...
07:19 AM on 06/03/2011
Excuse the spelling errors please.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ohioan4truth
I'm just an average, ordinary guy.
09:08 AM on 06/03/2011
This does not apply to ones such as the University of Pheonix, if you can call it a university. No campus, no parking spaces, no bricks, no mortar, no "books", no professors, no dorms...just a virtual existence that students pay throught the nose and out their a_ _ es for. And we all know how much 'internet ink' and 'internet paper' costs. See Ma? I'm using internet ink by the barrel on internet paper now! I would call it a virtual world rip-off.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Corvid
07:08 AM on 06/03/2011
In Britain, students don't even have to begin paying back their college loans until they're making more than the equivalent (in pounds sterling) of about $30,000 a year. And even then, the maximum amount they pay is only 9 percent annually of the amount of yearly income that exceeds $30,000. Thus, if the student were making $40,000 a year, he would pay just $900 a year on his loan (10 percent of the $10,000 that exceeds the $30,000 limit).

This puts some of the risk on the lender and school, rather than putting all the risk on the student. It sets up the right incentives for both schools and lenders, unlike our system, which actively encourages lenders and schools to rip off students as fast as they can.

So why not adopt the British model here? Why do our students, under our present system, deserve to be treated like sheep ready to be fleeced by big predatory institutions of finance and "learning"?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
killerbee256
09:12 AM on 06/03/2011
Greed and corruption that's why, the student loan lenders are making so much money and they don't want to lose it. And then they take that money to corrupt politicians to vote in their favour.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ohioan4truth
I'm just an average, ordinary guy.
09:17 AM on 06/03/2011
"Why do our students, under our present system, deserve to be treated like sheep ready to be fleeced by big predatory institutio­ns of finance and "learning"­ ". Drop the "Why do" and you've answered your own question. At least that's what our representative government thinks. It's representative of something but I wouldn't consider it anything of value or protection for us. You know, that "We the People" politicians keep talking about. But now that a corporations is a person, I suppose that "We" means them more than us.
06:54 AM on 06/03/2011
This is not surprising. It is now apparent that no meaningful regulation is going to take place. We now know that this reprehensible scam is a safe investment.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jcaunter
Profile: schizoid, INTJ
05:48 AM on 06/03/2011
In Obama's America "regulation" is a euphemism for "free pass to do whatever you want."
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
dashcat
Sanspoof is my idol
05:23 AM on 06/03/2011
If the market is going crazy for these colleges then it's a safe bet you won't be well served by taking classes at them. Profit is their bottom line, not education.

Buyer beware.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
intellifran
insert clever line here...
07:13 AM on 06/03/2011
That is absolutely incorrect. All shcools make a profit. The course schedules at traditional schools are designed to spend the most of your money on topics that are irrelevant to your degree program. That is a scam. Schools dealing in IT have to be accurate. The certification tests are national and not specific to one school. The student must pass in order to be certified.
11:34 PM on 06/04/2011
"All schools make a profit"...true. One is over seen by CEOs and stockholders who want a re!turn on their investment; nonprofits are run by VOLUNTEER Boards of Trustees and profits are recycled into improving facilities

"Traditional schools are designed to spend most of your money on topics that are irrelevant to your degree program" BS! Experts in your field determine degree requirements and competencies and are accountable through a rigorous national certification process in order to be "accredited".

"Schools dealing with IT have to be accurate...the certification tests are national ect..." Ridiculous! Every degree program from theatre, to education, to law, broadcasting,medicine, psychology, humanities all have national certification standards for their students, faculty and departments. If you want to be awarded a Bachelors degree of any kind, it is based on your completion of general education requirements: " irrelevant" work in reading, writing, science, math and critical thinking - which are continually and systematically under review by faculty - in addition to your major. Yes, all schools have to market and fill seats or there will be nothing there for you and some courses cost more to teach than others. IT students are learning to be of vital service to the institutions and companies they serve and must design processes that make the whole show run efficiently. Even as an arts major I know that and have respect for your field - I can't say the same about you.
photo
500 a
PATRIOTS AGAINST THE PATRIOT ACT !!!
02:50 AM on 06/03/2011
The 'for-profit' colleges are diverting money away from the taxpayer.
02:44 AM on 06/03/2011
Obama better put some jobs out there for American grads or it will belly up just like the housing market did, Stop giving preference to other countries over America,.
02:36 AM on 06/03/2011
Also, don't people go to for-profit colleges as they were not good enough to attend state schools where competition is high? Hence why the surprise when they don't perform as well as state schools? Of course default rates will be higher as candidate pools are of lower quality. I think it serves as a good lesson to all young people not to buy something (i.e. certain schools) if there is no value to it, especially if you have to borrow to get it. Think subprime. Go to CC's, work your butt off, and once the grades are good enough, transfer to state colleges.
photo
500 a
PATRIOTS AGAINST THE PATRIOT ACT !!!
02:53 AM on 06/03/2011
Many students attending these colleges are seduced by the sales pitch. They are desperate for a quick success.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
intellifran
insert clever line here...
07:17 AM on 06/03/2011
I attend UOP, I was not seduced by a sales pitch and my education is top notch. I write more research papers than the average student at a state school and I recieved a scholarship out of highschool for a private school. All of your assumptions are incorrect (as assumptions generally are). I choose to go to a school that did not have unnecessary requirements that will be used in my major. For example, my fiance was going to go to a state school for IT and he had to take composition 2 just to get through an associates program. That is ridiculous.
12:02 AM on 06/05/2011
Good luck to her. Don't be surprised if she must return to school to reach management level due to her inability to communicate effectively, write proposals, give presentations and provide leadership in the companies she serves. She may have to learn another language and learn the culture and history of the workers she could be supervising. She will have to make herself an asset to her company - be knowlegeable of trends, which she will find in publications WRITTEN by IT professionals or by producing one of her own -or maybe she wants to expand her expertise and become a teacher or consultant - not just an expendable cog in a corporate wheel. Her general education lays the foundation for her future success - in whatever industry she services.

It is amazing to me how students with no real expertise in a field feel they are authorities on how they should be educated. I understand the economic imperatives of trying to cut corners (for profits offer the convenience of online learning and weekend programs - so do accredited colleges and universities - who btw hire a lot of IT professionals), but if you think the school you attend and the courses you take don't matter - ask someone who has the level of success you aspire to in your field and listen to what they have to tell you. Their answers may surprise you. Learning is a lifelong process. Don't limit your opportunities by being narrow minded and cynical..