Home > Uncategorized > In “Dog Bites Man” Article, NYTimes Illustrates USDOE’s Complicity in Sustaining a Failing For-Profit College

In “Dog Bites Man” Article, NYTimes Illustrates USDOE’s Complicity in Sustaining a Failing For-Profit College

July 24, 2019

If you want to see how the US Department of Education’s tilt in favor of for profit education institutions works, read Erica Green and Stacy Cowley’s thoroughly researched NYTimes article titled “Emails Show DeVos Aides Pulled Strings for Failing Colleges“. The article offers evidence that USDOE officials conspired with officials at Dream Center Education Holdings, a subsidiary of a Los Angeles-based megachurch, when they continued to use misleading and dishonest advertising in an effort to keep their institution alive. Because the USDOE failed to act when Dream Center was clearly bankrupt both financially and educationally, US taxpayers and– most sadly– Dream Center students are on the hook for millions of dollars.

Here’s what I find to be most infuriating about this whole episode: the complicated inter-relationships between accreditors, the USDOE officials, and USDOE regulations make it very difficult to explain what happened in a way that is readily understandable. Consequently, when this kind of issue surfaces, there is no easy fix and politicians are left to point fingers at each other and voters often take sides based on their faith in one side or another or one economic theory or another. The only clear losers in all of this are the former students of Dream Center schools who lost money out of the pockets to take the courses or face the demand to pay debts for courses that led them no where. For those who see privatization and deregulation as the best way forward, this might not be a problem. Their mantra— caveat emptor— means that the students “got what they deserved” by enrolling in a failing institution. The only problem with that line of thinking is that the government who serves as the quality control gatekeeper knowingly allowed a failing institution to advertise itself as “accredited”. The government that was complicit in misleading the consumers should pay the price… not the consumers who thought they were enrolling in a government approved institution.

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: