Home > Students > Corinthian’s Failure Is the Government’s Failure, Too

Comments 0 Comments

No doubt you’ve heard the news: Corinthian Colleges has flipped the switch, leaving its 16,000 current students in the dark.

The for-profit “career college,” headquartered in Santa Ana, Calif., had been the subject of student and staff complaints, investigations by numerous state attorneys general, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Most recently, it was also hit with a $30 million fine by the Education Department for misleading students about their post-degree job prospects.

Jobs, however, aren’t among the affected students’ immediate concerns right now.

Like most other higher-education organizations, Corinthian’s business model is predicated on governmental largesse: specifically, the steady supply of easy-to-get student loans, grants and other aid. So when the ED cut off access to all that in 2014, students were left scrambling for alternate means of financing their studies.

The institution’s collapse, however, has left these same students with debts that will be difficult to repay now that the completion of their degrees is even less certain than it was before (for-profit-school graduation rates are roughly one third that of public four-year schools, according to a College Board policy brief).

According to the ED, these consumer-learners have two choices: They can either seek transfers to other institutions that will credit what they’ve accomplished to date or apply for a discharge of the federal student loans they’d undertaken to attend their now-defunct school.

Discharge sounds awfully appealing in a world where student loans are virtually impossible to escape, even in bankruptcy, but selecting that option would also leave them with nothing to show for their time and efforts. On the other hand, given the increasingly challenged educational-value proposition of the programs that career colleges offer, Corinthian students may have no other choice but to transfer their credits to other for-profit institutions, even though some of these also happen to be under investigation.

So it’s no wonder that when the ED urged Corinthian students to consider that course of action, consumer activists and proponents for educational policy reform were stunned by the department’s seeming about-face on the matter.

Clearly, the ED is stuck between a rock and a hard place.

The “rock” is the department’s now-obvious failure of preventing schools from using abundantly available, low-cost higher-education financing and other aid to develop what amounts to specialty degree programs targeted at economically fragile segments of the student population—degrees that may neither be aligned with those that are bestowed by mainstream public and private institutions nor universally accepted at face value by employers.

The “hard place” represents the significant financial and potentially precedent-setting consequences of discharging debts that, according to the National Center for Education Statistics, are undertaken by an average 83% of students at for-profit colleges versus 63% and 53% of students at private nonprofit and public institutions, respectively.

In other words, it’s all about what to do with a bunch of academic outliers who happen to owe a lot of money.

Apparently, the ED’s response is to punt that ugly ball. But does this crisis really begin and end with Corinthian? More important, are we missing an opportunity to turn this blunder into a blessing?

Many would rightly argue that lax oversight and the proliferation of low-rate financing inspired colleges and universities to build excessively, hire indiscriminately and engage in activities that not only distract from the core mission of providing quality higher education but have also led to practically unaffordable tuition prices.

The other side of that argument, however, is equally pointed: When all is said and done, the schools took the money. It’s therefore perfectly reasonable to expect their active participation in solving the problem, willingly or otherwise.

Rather than shunting these students to institutions that, arguably, have the potential to become the next Corinthians, or writing off billions of dollars’ worth of taxpayer-backed loans, the ED should get to work on a plan to mainstream them into traditional two- and four-year programs at the same schools that continue to cash the government’s checks.

Certainly, it would cost less to transition students in need of remedial education than it would to discharge their average unpaid debts. Furthermore, as the decline in higher-educational enrollments persists and private nonprofit and public school administrators resist taking the long overdue steps to reduce costs and improve educational content, it’s also only a matter of time before what we see taking place in the for-profit sector begins to occur elsewhere.

This story is an Op/Ed contribution to Credit.com and does not necessarily represent the views of the company or its affiliates.

More on Student Loans:

Image: Purestock

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

Certain credit cards and other financial products mentioned in this and other articles on Credit.com News & Advice may also be offered through Credit.com product pages, and Credit.com will be compensated if our users apply for and ultimately sign up for any of these cards or products. However, this relationship does not result in any preferential editorial treatment.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Our Owners

Credit.com is owned by Progrexion Holdings Inc. which is the owner and administrator of a number of business related to credit and credit repair, including CreditRepair.com, and eFolks. In addition, Progrexion also provides services to Lexington Law Firm as a third party provider. Despite being owned by Progrexion, it is not the role of the Credit.com editorial team to advocate the use of the company’s other services. In articles, reporters may mention credit repair as an option, for example, but we’ll also be sure to note the various alternatives to that service. Furthermore, you may see ads for credit repair services on Credit.com, but the editorial team isn’t responsible for the creation or implementation of those ads, anymore than reporters for the New York Times or Washington Post are responsible for the ads on their sites.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team