Get FREE NRO Newsletters

 

June 11 Issue  |  Subscribe  |  Renew

Close

New on NRO . . .

Phi Beta Cons

The Right take on higher education.


Print   |  Text
 

Paying for the Profits of the For-Profits

It turns out that the biggest supporters of the $30 billion for-profit college industry are Democrats. In response to the Obama administration’s attempt to impose restrictions on the huge flow of federal funds to these colleges and to tie it to their students’ ability to get jobs — as much as 90 percent of their revenue comes from federal aid while their student default rate is over 40 percent — the colleges spent more than $16 million to hire prominent Democrats with close ties to the White House to press their case, according to the New York Times

Among the lobbyists hired were Anita Dunn, a close friend of President Obama; Jamie Rubin, whose private equity firm has a stake in ATI, a for-profit college network based in Dallas; former Louisiania senator John Breaux; former House leader Richard Gephardt; and Tony Podesta, brother of Obama advisor John Podesta. Also exerting pressure on the White House were politically well-connected investors, including Donald F. Graham, chief executive of the Washington Post Company, which owns Kaplan University; and John Sperling, founder of the University of Phoenix and a longtime friend of the House minority leader, Nancy Pelosi.

The cronyism has been successful in getting the administration to water down the restrictions. The article also reports that the for-profits were once small, local operations, but are now multistate networks owned by Wall Street firms looking for big profits, that is, looking to redistribute taxpayer money to so-called investors. Consumer groups that tried to rein in the networks were outmatched, probably because they didn’t have access to federal funds to pay for lobbyists. 

New on Phi Beta Cons. . .


COMMENTS   1

EXPAND  

   12/16/11 14:04

Dear Carol: I can't resist pointing out (without necessarily disagreeing with anything you say) that the restrictions were probably unfair to begin with and, undoubtedly, represented an unequal application of the law in a country where the law (including regulations) is meant to be applied equally.

And we do need to be careful about assuming that somehow for-profits have federal money to spend and non-profits do not. There has been quite a bit of study now showing that traditional non-profit colleges are "plenty profitable," often at taxpayer expense. Best, Jane.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse

Add a Comment

Already Registered? Log In Here.


The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.


* Designates a required field.
© National Review Online 2012
All Rights Reserved.
Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital

Gift Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital
NR Apps
iPhone/iPad
Android

NRO Apps
iPhone
Support Us
Donate
Media Kit
Contact