<p>Ironically, somehow a few weeks ago my H’s name ended up on some marketing list for schools offering programs in hospital administration (my H is not interested in this, it is totally unrelated to his field, and he as a Masters in, and works in an IT/Business field), and he is not interested in returning to school. The sales calls we have received from schools I have for the mostpart never heard of (Everest College, Fortis College, Brown-Mackie, Sanford Brown, etc) have been relentless. I’ve gotten all of them to stop, but can’t seem to get him off the Everest College call list. I just ignore the call, but they are still on our voicemail when I get home.</p>
<p>"Higher education, like all bushiness, needs to be held accountable for the grossly inaccurate cost vs.value they deliver. High cost schools are supremely guilty in perpetuating this charade. They do so because it economically benefits those involved in inferring those false promises. "</p>
<ul>
<li>Market determines the price we pay. Some mortgage holders discovering it now. Price for education will continue to go up, since number of applicants per each spot is on a rise. Supply vs Demand, econ. 101.</li>
</ul>
<p>At some point you have to protect people from crooks. This particular school found a niche by preying on poor, uneducated people. They created a huge marketing machine to take advantage of a particular subset of the population. They made most of their money form Pell grants and private loans. Market demand, yes, unethical behavior, no. This particular lawsuit brought to the public and government’s eye, that some schools in this niche industry were seedy.</p>
<p>^People need to protect themselves. Nobody is required to remain in college they do not like. They can transfer. Imagine if everybody transfer out, would college exist? Would business exist if everybody stop buying their product? Remember Yugo car? Maybe not, but I do. Where they are? DISAPPEARED. People stopped buying them. Market can regulate itself much more efficiently and faster than government. In addition, government regulation does not care about “people”, it cares about katering to crooks like Al Gore, it cares to impose control and power over us. Did any government regulation saved us from food poisonning? I know that government regulation has killed very many businesses in my state They moved to other states with less stringent regulations. Is government regulation going to save us from future oil spill because they put stop on drilling? Nope, opposite will happen, because the same government is giving loans to Mexico and Brazil to drill in the same place. Are these countries known for safer way of drilling? I do not think so. But we need oil no matter who drills it out, we will consume it. Government cannot perform well its primary functions of supporting army and police and border control. Any other functions performed by government will have negative effects as they have in a past (SS, medicare, k-12 education…millions more).</p>
<p>Caveat emptor.
Agree with the buyer beware. However, I think arguments about government regulations, government loans to other countries or calling any politician a crook is not appropriate, and belongs only in the political forum. Political commentary does not belong here.</p>
<p>To me, the BC law student and Miss Thompson are in the same boat. They all want to better themselves, they all saw an ad, they all fall for it, they all educated themselves with borrowed money, they are all ADULTS making their own decisions. However, both plans fall though, they could not find any job or reaching their ultimate goal. Its like you bought a boat want to go to Cuba and before ashore a large wind blow the boat into the rocks and sink it, so you turn around suing the boat manufacturer that they should not advertise and sell you the boat in the first place. </p>
<p>IMHO, should they sue the carrier, the educational institution? No.</p>
<p>They are in the same boat as many, MANY other students, recent graduates and victims of the recession who have degrees and no jobs. Its a big boat with many occupants in a bad economy.</p>
<p>Here we go again. Somehow our sociaty and educational system pushes everyone to go to college. Not everyone should go. Once we make it socially acceptable for people not to go and learn a trade (we do need carpenters and plumbers.) the pressure for people who should never have applied will finally be gone. BITD all college diplomas were the same - no Honors College.</p>
<p>Personally, I think dismissing either misleading advertising or student loan debt as “buyer beware” is a bit short-sighted. How’d that work out in the housing market?</p>
<p>Are homeowners suing the banks/ mortgage companies for giving them loans for which they should not have qualified? Mortgages and the banking industry are more tightly regulated than school admissions procedures. There are breach of contract suits and some suits re: loan modification, etc, but these are slightly different issues in a more tightly regulated industry. These students aren’t suing their student loan lending companies, they are suing the schools. </p>
<p>That said, I agree that “college” is not for everyone, but I would not prevent a student who wanted to try to get a degree from making that effort. But where in any college or professional school acceptance to they guarantee them that they will find them a job after graduation?</p>
<p>"pressure for people who should never have applied will finally be gone. " ???</p>
<p>-Again, I am lost who is pusing whom? Who in a world can make a person to go to college? Even his/her parents cannot do it. The answer is: NOBODY. Person is going to college on his own, even if it is for the sake of going and nothing else, it is a personal decision. You are correct, somebody has to make/sell hamburgers. Carpenters are very skilled workers, I will not go that high. I imagine that carpenter require some extensive training and one needs to posses certain physical characteristics that I, for the sake of example, totally miss. I am physically restricted from performing tasks in carpenter trade. Do not kid yourself, not everybody can be a carpenter or work outside year around or be involved in other physical job.</p>
<p>My point is that student loan debt stands to impact the entire economy, not merely the individual borrower. Hence, it is my view that everyone has good cause for concern, even if you don’t give a whit about the indebted students.</p>
<p>I don’t think anyone is dismissing anything or being short-sighted. Handing out all these federal grants with low probability of return certainly does concern most of us. But if a school is certified (I don’t think all schools qualify for these loans-- after many fly-by-night training places went belly up and left students with no degree an a lot of debt) and the student qualifies for the loan, who can tell them they can’t have the $$? As linked in an earlier post, the govt is looking into capping the loans based on, IIRC, the predicted income and ability to repay the loan), but it would be un-PC to tell the poor, ill informed or the ignorant (and excuse me for being un-pc there) that they cant have a federal pell grant.</p>
<p>I wasn’t even addressing “grants.” Grants aren’t repaid. Financial aid in the form of student lending is debt. Like mortgages and credit cards or any other type of consumer debt, it impacts purchasing power an is subject to default, hence stands to impact the entire economy.</p>
<p>My error-- didn’t mean to refer to the grants-- I meant to refer to the federal loans. Though the implication that the grants are probably a big waste of money is understood.</p>
<p>I saw that Monroe was accredited when I first looked it up, but I still see this students lawsuit as in a very different category than the law students request for tuition reimbursement at BC (no litigation involved). JMO</p>
<p>Well… I wouldn’t agree that grants are a waste of money, but that’s a different conversation. :-)</p>
<p>I believe there’s widespread misrepresentation of the $ value of higher education which has led to uniformed borrowing. My personal view is we need to address this, whether out of a sense moral conscience or a realization of the potential impact on the overall economy, or both.</p>
<p>Maybe that would be a GOOD thing, ellemenope!</p>
<p>And to clarify, I think this should apply too to some of the Pell grants. I DO think some of the fly by night schools are a waste of everyones $$, and some cap on the # of years one can get the grants is also reasonable, if there isn’t already a cap on this (I plead ignorance). At some point its simply throwing good money after bad.</p>
<p>Well in regard to debt, again it is a choice. you can pay full tuition, you can work your butt off and go to school that offers you full tuition Merit $$ instead of elite college or you can find employment that pays to go to school. We have experience with all 3 options in our family. Out of 4 degrees (two of us and two kids), ended up paying for one, another one was covered by Merit $$ and two by various employers. </p>
<p>Again, it is a matter of choice. Although we paid one tuition, it was not a loan, we paid it out of our paychecks, again a choice, could have said no.</p>