Last month, the Education Department decided to freeze rules put in place by the Obama Administration that were meant to erase the student loan debts of students who had been defrauded by sketchy colleges. The rules were supposed to take effect on July 1.

But in May, a California association of for-profit schools filed a lawsuit in an attempt to block the new rules. Citing the lawsuit, Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos put the rules on hold. Now 18 states and the District of Columbia are suing DeVos and the department. Maura Healey, the Massachusetts attorney general who led the states’ effort, said:

Since day one, Secretary DeVos has sided with for-profit school executives against students and families drowning in unaffordable student loans. Her decision to cancel vital protections for students and taxpayers is a betrayal of her office’s responsibility and a violation of federal law.

DeVos called the so-called borrower defense rules “muddled” and “unfair to students.” But on Thursday, two students who have borrowed money for studies sued the Education Department over the same issue. They had both attended the for-profit New England Institute of Art in Massachusetts, which was the target of a federal lawsuit in 2015.

MA is challenging Betsy DeVos’s illegal attempt to protect fly-by-night schools that cheat students & bury them in mountains of debt.

— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) July 6, 2017

There is already a federal law in place that allows students to apply for loan forgiveness if they think they have been a victim of fraud, but the Borrower Defense to Repayment rule would facilitate and streamline the process. It was created when a massive number of students applied after some major for-profit education companies were shut down or filed for bankruptcy a few years ago.

More than 15,000 claims were filed after the Corinthian Colleges collapse alone, by students owing over $247 million. As of now, taxpayers have to foot that bill. The Obama-era regulations that DeVos froze would have required the schools that defrauded students to take responsibility. It would also forbid schools from implementing mandatory arbitration contracts that prohibit students from taking legal action against the schools.

Critics of the borrower defense rule said it’s too hard on individual schools. The association that filed the lawsuit in May, the California Association of Private Postsecondary Schools, said that the rule “threatens the existence” of some of the private schools.

But these schools deceived students by exaggerating job placement statistics; in one case, a school claimed that 100 percent of its students found a job in their field after graduating. The real number was 0 percent, the Education Department found in 2015. Other times, the schools closed unexpectedly and left the students without degrees but with massive debt.

The students that filed a lawsuit on Thursday said they already applied to have their loans written off under the older procedures. But at this point their cases have been pending for two years.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Eighteen States Sue Betsy DeVos for Blocking Student Loan Protection Rules appeared first on Law Street.

Student loan debt–it’s one of the most pervasive concerns for young adults today. Approximately 44 million Americans have student loan debt–those Americans in total owe about $1.3 trillion. The average graduate of the Class of 2016 will hold $37,172 in student debt by the time they graduate. But how much do students actually know about the debt they’re taking on? A new survey conducted by LendEdu, a New Jersey-based company that calls itself the “Kayak of student lending” shows that they may not know that much.

One of the biggest revelations from LendEdu, which surveyed current college students, is that about half of college students surveyed think their loans will qualify for federal forgiveness after graduation–and most of them are probably wrong. In truth, there are very few ways to get your loans completely forgiven. One way is to go into public service work for a minimum of 10 years, but a relatively small percentage of the population follows that path. A few other (rare) ways that students manage to qualify for student loan forgiveness is by accepting certain teaching programs that place teachers in underserved areas, or if the university you attended shuts down while you’re a student or within 120 days after you graduate. For the record, death also qualifies someone for student loan forgiveness…but it’s probably safe to say that most students aren’t including that as a viable option when it comes to not paying back student loans.

Other questions on the survey indicated that the respondents don’t have a great handle on a few different aspects of student loans. According to the survey: “80 percent of college students could not identify the current interest rates on undergraduate federal subsidized and unsubsidized student loans.” Similarly, “79 percent of college students could not identify the current repayment term of a federal student loan” and “when asked, 64 percent of college students incorrectly believe that it is possible to refinance student loan debt with the federal government.”

This of course, isn’t to say that these are facts that all borrowers of student loans should have off the top of their heads. Student loans–from applying to paying back the debt–are complicated. But at the same time, it’s important to teach and encourage realistic expectations as student loan debt continues to grow.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Much Do You Know About Your Student Loan Debt? appeared first on Law Street.

Now more than ever, families need to seriously weigh the financial pros and cons of universities. But there are some tools that can help–for example, the development of College Abacus, a website that makes it easier for students and their families to compare financial aid packages before applying to schools. College Abacus has been deemed the “Kayak” of college financial aid, but it’s always been controversial, and some schools have not allowed College Abacus to use their information. Schools such as Skidmore and Oberlin have lifted their original bans on the site, but others such as Harvard, Princeton, and California Institute of Technology Schools still block the site from using their information. While some of the concerns are warranted, schools are doing a disservice to their students by blocking the site.

When it comes down to it, college is an investment. While the profitable gains of the college experience remain immeasurable, the amount of debt students incur can easily be measured by families and graduates alike years after memories have faded. Since October 29, 2011 the Higher Education Act (HEA) has required colleges to provide a net price calculator on their websites. The price generated by these net price calculators gives an estimate of what families will pay for college minus grants and scholarships. The calculator bases its information off of similar data from students at that institution from the previous year. College Abacus helps students easily see these net prices together, and cuts down the time of entering the same information into multiple calculators on school websites.

Image courtesy of [SemperDoctus via Wikimedia]

Harvard, Princeton, and Cal Tech are not alone in their refusal to participate in College Abacus’s services. Schools have a right to worry about the site’s accuracy. The service sometimes takes similar questions from the different schools’ financial aid calculators and groups them together for comparison. At one point, College Abacus made a mistake when rephrasing a financial aid question for Hamilton College, which the co-founder of Abacus sorted out within 24 hours after the financial aid director of Hamilton reached out. The staff at Abacus welcomes concerns from financial aid officers, and relies on the schools for accuracy. But by opting out, schools block the site from accessing their net calculators.

Truly, students and their families are hurt when colleges and universities block Abacus. It has simply created a platform for families to compare the financial investment of college. Money may be the most objective differentiate between two schools for an individual family. The debate goes on for hours about the right environment, professors, dorms, location, etc between two schools, but comparing the potential net cost does not need to be an additional ordeal. In this new age of technology, universities should welcome tools creating more transparency for their future students.

Dorsey Hill

Dorsey is a member of Barnard College’s class of 2016 with a major in Urban Studies and concentration in Political Science. As a native of Chicago and resident of New York City, Dorsey loves to explore the multiple cultural facets of cities. She has a deep interest in social justice issue especially those relevant to urban environments. Contact Dorsey at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post College Abacus: Hurdles in Financial Aid Transparency appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier today, the hashtag #ThingsCollegeKidsDontGet began trending, prompting tons of funny, serious, and occasionally thought-provoking responses. Those who used the hashtag appeared to fall into two camps–some college students used it to lament the economic climate they’ve inherited–citing “affordable tuition,” “jobs,” and “a break” as things they don’t get. But there was also a way louder voice using the hashtag–those who are critical of college students following recent instances of contentious protests about race and equality across the country, most notably Mizzou and Yale. The hashtag is an interesting look into the generational divide in the U.S. that may be widening even further.

Let’s take a look at the tweets from those who believe that college students are overly sensitive:

#ThingsCollegeKidsDontGet that college is unbelievably easy, your degree impresses no one, and real life has no “safe spaces”

— Steven Crowder (@scrowder) December 14, 2015

#ThingsCollegeKidsDontGet A job after majoring in Lesbian Dance Theory.

— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) December 14, 2015

#ThingsCollegeKidsDontGet You can’t be anti capitalism and post on twitter with your Iphone.

— Cyborgwolf (@Cyborgwolf) December 14, 2015

#ThingsCollegeKidsDontGet The first amendment, apparently. — ScottInSC (@ScottInSC) December 14, 2015

The narrative that college students have become increasingly over-sensitive is a popular one right now. Pew conducted a widely-circulated poll that appeared to indicate that it’s true–40 percent of millennial respondents answered that the government should be allowed to limit speech that is offensive to minorities. In contrast, only 27 percent of Gen X-ers felt that way, as well as 24 percent of boomers, and 12 percent of the silent generation.

In light of the recent protests at Mizzou, Yale, and other schools, many (mostly conservative) writers and thinkers pointed to that Pew poll as evidence that millennials were overly sensitive and didn’t appreciate or understand the First Amendment. But is the concept that young people, particularly college students, are way more likely to be offended a fair assessment? Not so fast–these numbers can’t be taken out of context, and this is way more nuanced than a straight up-and-down vote on free speech. Jesse Singal, of NY Magazine, pointed out that the numbers reported by Pew weren’t some sort of crazy outlier just happening with American millennials. Singal stated, in regards to American tendencies when discussing free speech attitudes:

They’ve shown over and over again that they favor free speech in theory, when asked about it in the broadest terms, but they also tend to be fairly enthusiastic about government bans on forms of speech they find particularly offensive (what’s considered offensive, of course, changes with the times). On this subject, millennials are right in line with reams of past polling, and it would be wrong to hold up last week’s results as an example of anything other than an extremely broad tendency that’s existed for a long time.

There’s also not necessarily compelling evidence that college environments are turning our young people toward reactionary sensitivity. Michael McGough, of the Los Angeles Times, pointed out that “it seems that college students and college graduates are less prone to support punishment of ‘offensive’ speech than those who haven’t attended college.”

But this isn’t just all about numbers–there is, generally speaking, a legitimate and frustrating ideological split among older Americans and younger Americans when it comes to things like free speech and what constitutes “offensive.” #ThingsCollegeStudentsDontGet seems to be a manifest of that frustration–and indicative of the fact that the generational divide on social issues is very much alive and well. 

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post #ThingsCollegeKidsDontGet: Twitter Users Slam Millennials appeared first on Law Street.

Consider a scenario: the restaurant where you work is short-staffed and even though you are billed as a “part-time” worker, you are asked to pick up 34 hours in one week. This is completely legal–the Bureau of Labor Statistics considers a job that requires 34 hours or less in a week to be “part-time” whereas 35 hours or more in a week is considered “full-time” employment. But, before you accept the 34 hour week, consider another dimension: you are a college student and this is the week of your final exams. What comes first: your paycheck or your education?

According to a 2013 survey, 71 percent of college undergraduates work a part-time job. Out of that number, one in five were working at least 35 hours a week year-round. Among undergrads who weren’t full-time workers, more than half of them clocked in more than 20 hours a week.

The American Association of University Professors states that college students should be working total of ten to fifteen hours a week, based on research assessing retention rates for students who work part-time during the academic year. The College Board agrees that working more than 15 hours a week can lead to decreased success, which may in turn lead to dropping out of school entirely. During a presidential debate this fall, Hillary Clinton proposed that under her new education plan, college students would be expected to work 10 hours per week. Most colleges have accepted this 10 to 15 hour rule and attempt to limit the number of hours per week a student can work on campus, but that does not prevent students from seeking off-campus employment. In addition to part-time employment, college students spend an average of 17 hours per week studying outside of class. Students also have lives outside of the library and workplace. They make time to participate in clubs, play sports, act, play music, work on political campaigns, and go out with friends. In my experience, the young person who comes to college just to drink, sleep until noon, and build an insane Instagram feed is a myth.

Every student should have the opportunity to work during their academic career, either to finance their studies or to earn a little spending money, but the work-life balance many are expected to maintain is setting them up for failure. Unfortunately, without holistic reform of college tuition, students will have to keep working twice the number of hours they should be. The majority of students spend responsibly, sticking to budgets and depositing their earnings into savings accounts.

Several candidates in the 2016 presidential race have promised sweeping reforms if they are elected but in the meantime, I would like to appeal to the professors and employers of America’s undergraduate population: cut them some slack this month. Don’t make them choose between their education and their employment. Professors can give extensions on final exams and papers, and employers can assign their student employees fewer shifts during their final exam period. Higher education comes at a steep financial cost and these students are doing the best they can to balance their aspirations in the classroom with the realities of their checking accounts.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Textbooks and Time-cards: Working “Part-Time” in College appeared first on Law Street.

Energy drink company Vemma is in a lot of trouble after the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently announced that it was temporarily shutting down the company. The FTC has stated that Vemma was running an illegal pyramid scheme that targeted young adults and students.

#FTC shuts down #vemma nutritional drink’s alleged pyramid scheme http://t.co/iPrGiIbVtP pic.twitter.com/7qhrUpCwAg

— UPI.com (@UPI) August 28, 2015

Vemma recruited “affiliates,” most of them impressionable college students, who then were required to purchase starter kits to sell the nutrition drinks to others. Products that Vemma produced included Verve, and Bod-e. The starter kits were $500 each, and then Vemma affiliates had to purchase an additional $150 in products and marketing tools each month. Vemma told the affiliates that they could make up to $50,000 a week working for the company. Despite those claims, the vast majority of participants ended up losing money, or earning very little.

But most importantly, the affiliates also helped to recruit more affiliates who were then subject to the same outrageous fees. According to the FTC, Vemma made its money by bringing on affiliates–hence the pyramid scheme accusations. Vemma made over $200 million in revenue in 2014 through these methods. Jessica Rich, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection stated:

Rather than focusing on selling products, Vemma uses false promises of high income potential to convince consumers to pay money to join their organization. We are also alleging that Vemma is an illegal pyramid scheme.

Vemma is also being accused of misleading marketing–the promotional materials it used to try to attract the affiliates promised that if you worked for the company you’d be “driving a BMW within 90 days” and featured pictures of young people in luxury vehicles, yachts, and jets.

Vemma isn’t the first nutrition drink company to come under a watchful eye. Herbalife was also accused of running a pyramid scheme in 2013, by a hedge fund called Pershing Square. Ironically, there’s a connecting between Herbalife and Vemma as Anthony Powell jumped ship from the former to the latter that same year. The FTC is now investigating Herbalife as well.

Vemma shows the mighty fall far, as it was once heralded as a company on the rise. The Phoenix Business Journal–Vemma is based out of Arizona–named it the Number one fastest growing private company on the Arizona Corporate Excellence. However, at this point it seems like that growth was begotten through illegal means.

For now, the FTC suit is still ongoing, but it doesn’t look like Vemma will be springing back anytime soon.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post FTC Accuses Vemma of Running a Pyramid Scheme appeared first on Law Street.

For the last few days a video has been making its way through certain circles of the internet. One of our bloggers, the awesome Allison Dawson, even wrote a piece about it entitled, “9/11 Never Forget? Not Exactly for These GW Students.” The video is a handful of students from The George Washington University here in D.C. answering a few questions on current events. The interviewer is Ashley Pratte, a spokeswoman for Young America’s Foundation. If you haven’t seen it yet, it’s right here:

Now before I continue, full disclosure here. I’m a recent GW alum. I still have some school spirit. I had a great time at GW, made some of my best friends there, and will always be thankful for the opportunities I was offered. That being said, there are plenty of things that I will always slam GW for — looking at you former GW President Stephen Joel Trachtenberg for making offensive comments about rape into a particularly lurid art form. When it comes to this video though, I’m going to stand with my alma mater.

The tactics that YAF used were cheap, gotcha journalism. It seems like they came in with a hypothesis — students at a mostly liberal university that’s often named one of the most politically active schools in the country are a shining example of how today’s young people are ignorant about world events. I mean come on, the video started with the interviewer standing in front of kegs being unloaded. I’m sure that was just the most convenient place to stand, and not at all an entirely unsubtle reference to the fact that occasionally college kids drink rather than watch CNN.

And then let’s think about the questions they asked: 9/11, ISIS, and the celebrity nude photo leak. The phrasing of the 9/11 question was vague at best: “Next week marks the anniversary of a major national event. Do you know what that is?” I was an international affairs major, so I’m just going to need you guys to believe me when I say I know a fair bit about 9/11. But to be honest, I don’t know I would have gotten that question right. I am a self-sufficient adult, yet I came really damn close to not realizing my birthday was coming up a few weeks ago. That’s not a fair question — ask me what major national event is coming up next week and I’m pretty sure my response is going to be “remind me what dates are next week?” A fairer question would have included at least an attempt at context, for example, “What major national event falls in the second week of September?” or an actually substantive question, such as “What happened on September 11, 2001?” or “Who committed the acts of terror against the U.S.?” Should more students have gotten the question right as it was? Probably. But is it fair to conclude from a vaguely worded question that those students don’t know what 9/11 is, or remember it? Hardly.

And let’s talk about the sample size used in this “study.” Thirty students who were put completely on the spot while cameras were rolling…out of a population of roughly 24,000, including grad students… who were randomly found on campus. Congrats, that’s a statistically negligible sample size of .00125 percent! Listen, if YAF had gone ahead and conducted a legitimate survey of a real sample size and gotten the same results, I’d be embarrassed on behalf of my alma mater. But this is just silly. Grabbing students on their way home from class or work, asking them poorly contextualized questions, and then watching your hypothesis come true is hardly good journalism.

What this was was a poorly laid trap.

Out of curiosity, I actually tracked down one of the students in the video. Noah Katz, a freshman in GW’s Elliott School of International Affairs, told me that while Pratte was very polite, he though the question about 9/11 was weirdly phrased. Katz told me, “they asked what landmark United States event is having its anniversary in the next coming weeks. I immediately thought about things like Roe v Wade or Brown v Board of Education.” 

Finally, let’s stop and think for a minute here. Even if some students don’t know the names of the journalists beheaded by ISIS, but do know that Jennifer Lawrence had her nude photos leaked, does that really tell us anything about them as people? You could play this game with anything. If you tracked me down on the street and asked me about music or physics, my answers would probably be pretty embarrassing. One of the greatest things about my college experience was that i was exposed to people from different backgrounds, different political affiliations, and with different interests, hobbies, and priorities than myself. That’s how real life is, that’s how America is, and that’s OK.

Yes, we should all strive our best to be informed, but a three-minute video on the street with 30 students and blatantly biased techniques doesn’t do much to convince me that we’re doing a bad job of that. Instead of tearing each other down for some gaps in knowledge, let’s celebrate the fact that we live in a country where we have the freedom to have those kinds of differences.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Response: Stupid GW Students or Gotcha Journalism? appeared first on Law Street.