You choose, we deliver
If you are interested in this story, you might be interested in others from The Journal Gazette. Go to www.journalgazette.net/newsletter and pick the subjects you care most about. We'll deliver your customized daily news report at 3 a.m. Fort Wayne time, right to your email.

Editorials

  • A kinder, wiser legislature
    From a rocky start, the Indiana General Assembly has settled into a more contemplative, polite and even productive mode in the second half of its session.
  • Furthermore …
    For Santorum’s Hoosier backers, appearance is realityChallenges to Rick Santorum’s Indiana candidacy offer yet another example of the weakness of Hoosier conflict-of-interest laws.
  • A real Renaissance
    For many years, most local home building has been at the city’s fringes, helping push geographic growth but also encouraging sprawl.
Advertisement

Size up college aid

With the state’s unemployment rate stuck in double digits, frustrated job seekers are increasingly looking to college for an advantage. Not all education opportunities are equal, however. One new report suggests that students and taxpayers are losing more than expected when a degree doesn’t lead to a well-paying job.

The Obama administration’s scrutiny of for-profit colleges is welcome and should bring greater transparency about the long-term costs of what can sometimes be a poor college choice. The Chronicle of Higher Education reported this month that the default rate on student loans is much higher than federal data suggest, with 44 percent of students from for-profit colleges defaulting on their loans within 15 years of repayment.

When students default on federal loans, they lose eligibility for more federal aid, face seizure of wages and tax refunds and are left with credit records that make it difficult to take out a loan or be approved for a credit card.

Low-income students who use their federal Pell grants to attend a for-profit school and finish without a two-year degree or certification that leads to a job might be spared the burden of debt, but they will have exhausted their available aid and find themselves without money to attend a program that could truly help them get ahead.

Meanwhile, for-profit colleges are flourishing. The University of Phoenix will collect $1 billion in Pell grants this year; $4 billion in federal loans. Twenty-five percent of all federal aid goes to for-profit colleges, even though they enroll just 10 percent of students, according to the College Board.

The Chronicle reports stark differences in borrowing rates between for-profit colleges and community colleges like Ivy Tech. Just 10 percent of community college students took out federal Stafford loans in 2007-08, with most borrowing less than $10,000. But 88 percent of students enrolled in for-profit schools held Stafford loans; with 20 percent of those earning a two-year degree, leaving with more than $30,000 in debt.

Last year, the average tuition bill at a for-profit college was $14,174. At Ivy Tech, tuition is $3,137 this year.

For-profit colleges qualify to receive federal student aid under a provision of the federal higher education bill by preparing students for “gainful employment in a recognized occupation.”

With increasing reports of students graduating with a degree or certification and unable to land a job, Congress has urged the U.S. Department of Education to scrutinize how well for-profit colleges prepare students. A posting in the regulatory process last week sent the stocks of publicly traded schools soaring, apparently because it signaled the administration was backing down on its earlier tough stance on the definition of “gainful employment.”

New regulations go into effect next July 1, but prospective students should make the effort to investigate promises made by college recruiters. For-profit colleges made higher education accessible to previously unserved groups by opening campuses in heavily populated and heavily traveled areas. They offered schedules that better accommodated working students and pioneered online learning.

But there’s a difference between making college accessible and delivering instruction that allows students to earn a living wage and repay their education loans. As long as taxpayers are footing a big portion of the college bill, they should demand increased scrutiny.