Over the past few weeks, hundreds of thousands of students nationwide walked across football fields, basketball courts, and stages to receive their diplomas. They sat patiently, sporting caps and gowns in their school colors, while professors, politicians, CEOs, and celebrities imparted wisdom, jokes, and life lessons upon them. Here are the commencement speeches from politicians that will be flooding your newsfeeds for the next month.

Donald Trump: Liberty University

In his first commencement speech as president, Donald Trump encouraged graduates to take the “road less traveled” and follow their convictions.

“You must be willing to face criticism from those who lack the same courage to do what is right,” Trump said. “I know that each of you will be a warrior for the truth, will be a warrior for our country and for your family. I know that each of you will do what is right, not what is the easy way, and that you will be true to yourself and your country and your beliefs.”

He took the opportunity to subtly criticize his opponents in “broken” Washington, saying that the system is overrun with “a small group of failed voices who think they know everything and understand everyone.”

Like in many of his public speeches since the beginning of his presidency, Trump also mentioned crowd sizes and voter turnout.

“This is a beautiful stadium and it is packed. I’m so happy about that,” he said. “And I want to thank you because, boy, did you come out and vote, those of you that are old enough, in other words, your parents. Boy, oh, boy, you voted, you voted.”

Trump’s speech focused primarily on the importance of embracing the label “outsider” and standing up for one’s beliefs, even when critics get in the way or say something is unattainable. This theme rings especially true coming from Trump, whose election success can be partially credited to his status as a political outsider.

“Nothing is easier or more pathetic than being a critic, because they’re people that can’t get the job done,” he said. “But the future belongs to the dreamers, not to the critics. The future belongs to the people who follow their heart no matter what the critics say, because they truly believe in their vision.”

The president also spoke at the Coast Guard Academy. Read his full remarks from Liberty here.

Avery Anapol

Avery Anapol is a blogger and freelancer for Law Street Media. She holds a BA in journalism and mass communication from the George Washington University. When she’s not writing, Avery enjoys traveling, reading fiction, cooking, and waking up early. Contact Avery at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Commencement: What Politicians Want the Class of 2017 to Know appeared first on Law Street.

Sit-in protests continue at Duke University, where students are enraged by the actions of some of their school administrators. The protests began last Friday afternoon when nine students occupied the second floor lobby of the Allen Building, home to the school’s administrative offices.

Why are Duke students protesting? Uniting under the hashtag #DismantleDukePlantation, this group of students is reacting to recent allegations of administrators using racial slurs. One instance of this, which is at the forefront of the movement, is the story of how Executive Vice President Tallman Trask hit a parking attendant, Shelvia Underwood, with his car and proceeded to shout a racial slur at her. Trask released an apology after the incident stating:

I want to say a word to the Duke community about my interaction with Shelvia Underwood in August 2014, which has been a subject of much recent discussion.  While the details of what happened are a matter of disagreement and subject of civil litigation, I recognize that my conduct fell short of the civility and respectful conduct each member of this community owes to every other. I express my apology to Ms. Underwood and to this community and re-commit myself to ensuring that these values are upheld for all.

His apology has received a lot of criticism, especially given the contention over whether or not Trask used racial slurs during the instance, which he denies ever doing.

If my students had an assignment to write an apology & they wrote what Trask did, I'd make them do it over #DismantleDukePlantation

— Erin Parish (@erindparish) April 4, 2016

We won't stop at the apology, we want Trask's termination! #DismantleDukePlantation #DSWS

— Sydney Roberts (@hegelsbagels) April 4, 2016

Once stories about Trask began to unfold, even more employees came forward, reporting to the Duke Chronicle about what they describe as a hostile and discriminatory work environment and leadership. According to one staff member, instances of the administration using sexist and racial slurs against employees are frequently covered up by the administration.

What are the protesters demanding? The main part of their demand is for Trask and two other administrators to be fired for their abhorrent behavior towards staff members. In addition, the protesters are pulling for an increase in the minimum wage for Duke employees from twelve to fifteen dollars an hour, double the North Carolina minimum wage of seven fifty an hour. Graduate student Bennett Carpenter was quoted saying that the biggest goal is that they “want accountability” especially because “Duke absolutely has a culture of racism, deep structural racism built into the institution.”

A couple of nights ago, the nine students protesting were given amnesty by the administration, meaning they will not be punished for their demonstration. Footage of the night shows students cheering as they learned this news:

Occupying students have been granted amnesty and will not face administrative retaliation #DismantleDukePlantation pic.twitter.com/OEUGStm7jY

— Ultralima Bean (@ZoroastrianFunk) April 4, 2016

Although they aren’t facing administrative retaliation, there has been an attempt to cast this protest in a negative light by the university, as they closed the Allen Building, preventing classes from meeting and disrupting usual business hours. While the school claims this closure was to continue the open dialogue with the students and for safety purposes, the students protesting claim that there was no reason to shut down the school building, other than to cast the protest in a negative light.

Duke released a statement on Monday claiming the following:

The negotiations have continued today (Monday), and it has become clear that reaching agreement on all the remaining demands will require far more extensive conversation, likely to include other members of the Duke community. Closing the Allen Building while these negotiations go on has presented a significant disruption to students, faculty, staff and visitors, and cannot continue indefinitely.

Today, it was announced that the students rejected an offer of concessions from the administration that would improve some of the contested working conditions.

It is unclear how long this protest will go on, but, based on the continued uproar on Twitter, it looks like the protestors are serious about getting what they came for, and they are not alone in their goals on campus.

It's Day 6 on our way to #DismantleDukePlantation. We have been occupying Allen for over 100 hours. We shall not be moved. We will win.

— anastasia kārkliņa (@brdngresistance) April 6, 2016

#faculty forward shows support for #DismantleDukePlantation pic.twitter.com/IDULTwK0Xq

— Ashley D. Farmer (@drashleyfarmer) April 3, 2016

standing in solidarity with Duke students and workers occupying the Allen building! #DismantleDukePlantation pic.twitter.com/uhO5aSArWl

— Joe Stapleton (@joe_stapes) April 3, 2016

Here’s to hoping everything ends as peacefully as possible. Even if they don’t receive all of their specific demands, the students at Duke University have drawn national attention to an issue that likely affects universities all across America. They are bringing the country one step closer to #DismantlingtheDukePlantation and promoting equality for all.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post #DismantleDukePlantation: Duke Student Protests Continue appeared first on Law Street.

As primary season heats up, the candidates still remaining in the presidential race have begun fine-tuning their higher education plans. Candidates from both sides of the aisle have spoken about how they would change, revamp, and, in some cases, fix higher education. But aside from Marco Rubio, only those from the Democratic party had rolled out specific plans to address rising tuition costs and astronomical student debt prior to the first primary contest in Iowa.

While we evaluate who’s still left in the race, let’s begin to look at the remaining candidates’ positions on higher education. Keep reading to learn more.

Bernie Sanders

As previously noted, Bernie Sanders’ education plan aims to make postsecondary education free at both community colleges and public four-year universities.

Historically Black College and Universities

In an appeal to lure African American voters and young people, Sanders asserted that tuition-free education would not force private historically black college and universities (HBCUs) to close down.

Representing the 6^th District of South Carolina and an influential power broker in presidential primary races, Congressman James Clyburn expressed his concerns over the prospect of free public education and the impact on black colleges.

“You’ve got to think about the consequences of things. If you start handing out two years of free college at public institutions are you ready for all the black, private HBCUs to close down? That’s what’s going to happen,” Clyburn said.

In a recent interview with MSNBC’s Tamron Hall confirming his endorsement of Hillary Clinton, Clyburn also said of the Sanders tuition-free education plan and the America’s College Promise plan proposed by the current administration, “there are no free lunches so there will be no free education.”

Student Loans and Interest Rates

Part of the Sanders education plan also includes lowering the interest rates on student loans. Sanders hopes to reduce loan interest rates to what they were 10 years ago. In 2006, undergraduate student loans hovered around 2.37 percent, which would cut the current rate of 4.39 percent nearly in half.

Sanders believes students should be able to refinance their loans in a similar fashion as auto loans. According to Sanders, if a loan for a car can be obtained at a 2.5 percent interest rate, why are students forced to pay between 5-7 percent for multiple decades? From the beginning, Sanders has vowed to prevent the federal government from making money on student loans but it remains to be seen just how he’d stop the profiting.

Hillary Clinton

There are commonalites between Democratic candidates Sanders and Clinton surrounding student debt and tuition-free community college. While Sanders believes there is a way to make both two-year and four-year public colleges tuition-free, Clinton’s New College Compact plan stipulates that students should never need to borrow to pay for tuition, books, and fees to attend a public in-state university. The Clinton education plan also calls for the ability for Pell Grants to be used for living expenses.

Historically Black College and Universities

As part of her plan to attract minority voters and young people, part of Clinton’s education plan includes a $25 billion investment in HBCUs, hispanic serving institutions (HSI), and other minority serving institutions (MSI) serving a high percentage of Pell Grant recipients in an effort to lower cost and increase student outcomes. This fund would also help low to moderately endowed nonprofit private institutions within the HBCU system. Contrary to Sanders, Clinton plans to invest in private postsecondary education, acknowledging that private colleges also help under-served students graduate.

Marco Rubio

Marco Rubio’s higher education plan, which emphasizes access and affordability, includes cheaper options for online education. Rubio also calls for students to treat themselves as commodities when applying to college, and asks students to embrace what he refers to as “human capital contracts” by selling themselves to private investors.

He asserts that students should know how much they could expect to earn before taking out a loan to pay for their education. Rubio maintains that the current higher education system in this country is outdated, broken, and “needs a disruption,” citing that college is too expensive, time consuming, and inflexible. Rubio uses partisan language to explain that the Democrats’ approach to fixing higher education is the same one attempted in Washington for decades by pouring money into an outdated system and raising taxes.

Income-Based Loan Repayment

There are some facets of Rubio’s education plan that are consistent with Clinton and Sanders. They are in agreement on investing in student success and wanting to simplify the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). However, Rubio wants to implement an automatic income-based student loan repayment plan in order to ease student loan debt. The current administration has already enacted repayment plans that are income-based as an option, but Rubio believes this should be the sole universal method for federal student loans.

Ties to Corinthian Colleges

In an effort to move higher education into the 21^st century, Rubio wants to ease access to state colleges and online education opportunities, and reshape accrediting entities to accommodate non-traditional education. This may raise concern with voters based on his ties to the for-profit Corinthian Colleges, which have contributed to his Reclaim America Pac.

Last spring, Corinthian Colleges filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and shut their doors for good, which adversely impacted over 16,000 students. In December of 2015, the Obama administration began the process to forgive nearly $28 million in federal student loans for over 1,300 students that said the now-defunct Corinthian Colleges violated their rights on grounds that they used deceptive tactics to convince students to take out loans. Now up to 350,000 students could be forgiven for taking out loans to pay tuition.

John Kasich

GOP Candidate Governor John Kasich of Ohio plans to keep college affordable by focusing on the 100 percent performance-based funding formula that emphasizes completion and graduation rates. The formula that has kept Ohio a leader in the nation with regard to freezing tuition rates for the next couple of years, Kasich plans to expand what has worked in Ohio to a federal level. The remaining focuses of Kasich’s education plan are centered heavily on K-12 education.

Donald Trump and Ted Cruz

Neither Donald Trump nor Texas Senator Ted Cruz have released their plans for higher education. However, in recent weeks Trump has been accused of scamming students with his for-profit Trump University, which began operating in 2005. Rubio attacked Trump, calling the university a “fake school,” and claiming the university has been defrauding students out of thousand of dollars after reports were revealed that students are currently suing Trump for restitution.

Conclusion

As the field narrows, voters are going to need to decide who their next president will be based on issues extending far beyond higher education. That said, the candidates left standing need to be clear about all of their plans. That includes laying out specifics on how to implement each education plan, including how they will be paid for, and who in the new president’s cabinet will oversee these implementations.

Some of these higher education plans are more radical than others, but hopefully as the election season gathers steam, voters will finally be privy to what higher education will look like for incoming students, new graduates paying back student loans, and mid-career professionals who may seeking relief from drowning in student loan debt.

Resources

Real Clear Politics: 2016 Republican Presidential Nomination

Buzzfeed: Clyburn: Sanders’ Education Plan is a Disaster for Private Black Colleges

Center for Responsive Politics: Corinthian Colleges 2014

New York Times: Ben Carson Seeing No Path Forward, Signals End of Candidacy

New York Times: Super Tuesday Results

Washington Post: Students of Defunct For-Profit Colleges to Receive $28 Million in Loan Forgiveness

Think Progress: Rubio Attacked Trump for Running a ‘Fake School.’ But There’s Just One Problem

Jamal Evan Mazyck

Jamal Mazyck is currently pursuing an Ed.D. in educational leadership and is a graduate research assistant at San Diego State University. When he is not writing, researching or tweeting about the ins and outs of higher education, he can be found on the tennis court and running half-marathons. Contact Jamal at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What are the Candidates’ Higher Education Plans Post-Obama? 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.

For a while, it seemed like for-profit colleges were the newest, hottest frontier in higher education. But with current student debt problems, and many revelations about some of the predatory practices of for-profit colleges, the trend appears to have officially passed. Arguably the most well-known for-profit institution of higher learning–The University of Phoenix–may be the latest to find itself in hot water.

Late last week the parent company of the University of Phoenix, Apollo Education Group, released information that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) was investigating the company. The investigation is attempting to determine if the University of Phoenix ran deceptive or unfair business practices. The investigation is particularly focused on its recruitment of veterans. The accusations claim that the company has left veterans with high levels of debt after collecting hundreds of millions in GI Bill money. It’s not just the GI Bill money that the University of Phoenix has collected, however, according to financial records the company has collected over $488 million in fees and tuition from veterans’ own money for its online programs, and additional sums at various physical locations.

The University of Phoenix has been declining slowly for a little while now. Five years ago, the school reported almost half a million students. That number has been essentially halved since then. In 2012, the University of Phoenix was forced to close 115 of its campuses. In addition, revenue has been declining, and there have been many accusations levied against the company in regards to the way that it treats its students and potential recruits.

The controversy over the University of Phoenix is borne out of concerns that the school required participants to take out expensive loans, which could have been fine had those participants had the ability to pay back those loans after they graduated. However, the education provided at the University of Phoenix doesn’t necessarily lead to employment, the credits usually don’t transfer to other schools, and the degrees aren’t always recognized by employers.

In order to cooperate with the investigation, as Apollo Education Group promised in its statement, the company will have to provide the federal investigators with documents such as financial information, marketing, billing, debt collection, accreditation, and military recruitment practices.

This investigation into the University of Phoenix is consistent with a theme of increased scrutiny on for-profit schools, many of which are struggling in the now seemingly turbulent educational environment. Last month, the Obama Administration began cracking down on for-profit schools. A new rule that took effect in July from the Department of Education is the “gainful employment rule” which “requires colleges to track their graduates’ performance in the workforce and eventually will cut off funding for career training programs that fall short.”

Equal opportunities for education are essential, but not if they hurt students more than they help. There’s now significant suspicion that many for-profit institutions fall into the latter camp–University of Phoenix may just be the latest to get in trouble as a result.

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 University of Phoenix Under FTC Investigation appeared first on Law Street.

It’s no secret that college education in this country has gotten extremely pricey. For more and more students, the only possible way to gain a higher education is to apply for student loans. Unfortunately, many of the students who take out loans then have a difficult time paying them back. The Department of Education used to employ debt collection companies to track down that money. However, the Department of Education just announced that it will be no longer contracting five of those companies, after they provided inaccurate information to borrowers.

The companies whose contracts are being terminated are Pioneer Credit Recovery, Coast Professional, Enterprise Recovery Systems, National Recoveries, and West Asset Management. According to Bloomberg the reasoning for the decision included findings that:

The companies gave borrowers misleading information about ‘the benefits to the borrowers’ credit report’ and about ‘the waiver of certain collection fees,’ the agency said.

It appears that the Department of Education isn’t going to cut its work off with these five companies overnight. Rather, its planning on “winding down” the contracts and transferring them to other companies.

This is a good public relations move for the Department of Education. The department has long been under fire for working with the debt collection companies. Various watchdogs have accused the Department of Education of turning a blind eye to the companies’ practices. For example, the Government Accountability Office, the part of the U.S. government which investigates and evaluates other departments’ practices, claims that the Department of Education found the debt collectors violated the federal law yet didn’t do anything about it.

However, the five debt collection companies are claiming that they were “blindsided” by the Department of Education’s decision. Pioneer Credit Recovery claimed that it had been told last April that it was complying with various regulations. Pioneer also claimed that the Department of Education had conducted 17 different reviews over the course of 2014, and never brought up any concerns or violations to Pioneer.

This decision comes during the middle of a nationwide discussion on student loans, and the viability of for-profit universities. Earlier this week, a letter written by 15 students who attended the for-profit Corinthian Colleges network was shared around the internet. The so called “Corinthian 15” are asking the Department of Education for loan forgiveness. The letter includes the following:

We trusted that education would lead to a better life. And we trusted you to ensure that the education system in this country would do so. But Corinthian took advantage of our dreams and targeted us to make a profit. You let it happen, and now you cash in.

Each month you force us to make payments into an immoral system that profits from our aspirations.

We paid dearly for degrees that have led to unemployment or to jobs that don’t pay a living wage. We can’t and won’t pay any longer.

It’s a powerful message to the Department of Education, and while the department’s move away from predatory debt collectors is a good thing, it’s just a very small step in the right direction.

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 Department of Education Dumping Misleading Debt Collectors appeared first on Law Street.

Higher education is the most important aspect to economic prosperity. Colleges and universities prepare future leaders who will drive national and global economies. As globalization is not a new phenomenon, but an established process, education ties together countries via investments, banking systems, technology, and travel. As a result, the quality of education is on the agenda in many countries across the globe.

President Obama’s college rating system is a highly debated topic across the country, with policymakers and educators casting concerns over its shortcomings and dangers. The current administration has already introduced reform programs in health care and immigration, which were controversial at best; its plan to reform education is no different. It’s an all-encompassing reform that can play out either way. Read on to learn more about the benefits, shortcomings, and possible consequences of Obama’s college rating system.

Do other governments rank colleges?

Colleges and universities across the globe have long been rated by their governments in the hope of establishing the best educational value. Originally, independent agencies or non-profit organizations played the leading role in this task. Later, governments began to regulate and assess higher education. The United States is not the first country to take steps to ensure quality control in education. For example:

• Finland created the Higher Education Evaluation Council.
• Australia came out with the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency.
• The European Union has its U-Map.
• Britain assembled an online tool to showcase university statistics and measure college performance.

Some initiatives are more successful than others, but all reflect the need to provide meaningful tools for students and governments to compare educational value. Following the global trend, Obama’s college rating system is an attempt to ensure quality of learning and accountability on the part of educational institutions in the United States.

Why would Obama want to rank colleges?

There are generally three main reasons why the current administration feels the need to address the educational sector, and, specifically, to establish the college rating system: rising student debt, inequality, and falling graduation rates. The picture is rather bleak. The majority of the prospective student body cannot afford college without taking out loans. In addition, there are few jobs available, especially for recent graduates. As a result, some default on their debt, while others struggle for decades to pay back their loans. Unfortunately, not only do colleges charge a lot of money for education, the quality of learning is deteriorating as well.

Rising Student Debt

As more students continue to borrow money from the government to pay for their higher education, the number of those who fail to find a job after graduation and to pay back their loans has increased dramatically over the last decade. According to a recent study, 60 percent of four-year college students graduate with an average $26,500 in debt. In addition, tuition increases every year, prompting concerns over the affordability of higher education. The same study estimates a 231 percent public college tuition increase and a 153 percent private college increase over the last 30 years.

Watch the short documentary below for more information on the increasing costs of tuition and deteriorating value of education in America.

Inequality

Inequality in education is a direct consequence of high tuition. Students whose families cannot afford to pay tuition for their higher education generally have two choices. They can either take out loans from the government, which often lead to decades-long debt, or they can start working low-paying jobs right after high school. Those are two extremes, of course, as some students receive scholarships or combine loans and jobs; however, even if a student qualifies for scholarships based on merit, he won’t necessarily be able to pay the full remaining tuition. Not only does this scenario exclude bright-but-poor students from receiving high-quality education, but it prompts many of them to take out multiple loans that they may not be able to repay.

Watch the shocking video below to understand the realities behind wealth inequality in the United States.

Low Graduation Rates

The number of students who fail to complete their studies has increased throughout the last decade. As of 2013, the United States ranks 13 out of 34 countries measured for college attainment. The Chronicle of Higher Education provides in-depth data and analysis on graduation rates across the country, which vary greatly by the type of the higher educational establishment and its location. Click here to read its most recent overview.

Low graduation rates prompt concerns that the overall quality of learning is deteriorating, even though the quality of learning cannot be measured by graduation rates alone. Students drop out of college for many reasons: financial difficulties, family issues, transfers, or simply because they are taking a break. The current administration, however, believes that colleges need to make sure their students are making progress toward a degree, especially those who receive financial aid.

So, how will rating colleges fix these problems?

Using the college rating system, the Obama Administration hopes to reduce student debt, provide more access and opportunities to low-income students, and improve higher educational standards. The president’s plan is to use these ratings as a mechanism of accountability and transparency. Before taking out a loan, students will have access to information on loan default rates, employment outcomes, and anticipated monthly payments after graduation. If students can make informed decisions, it should help to reduce loan debt. Also, the government will provide more federal funds for those colleges that keep their prices low and improve quality. It should help to quell inequality of access to higher education and raise the value of learning.

What does the college rating system look like?

The Postsecondary Institution Ratings System (PIRS) is a part of the Obama Administration’s effort to provide more transparency and accountability in higher education. The government is planning to fully implement PIRS by the 2015-2016 academic year.

College Scorecard

PIRS is essentially folded into one tool, the College Scorecard, already available online through the College Affordability and Transparency Center. It’s very easy to use, and requires only basic computer skills and internet access. The College Scorecard is still in the process of development; for now it provides information on costs, graduation rates, loan default rates, and median borrowing. The Department of Education is still working on obtaining data on the average income of former undergraduate students. The College Scorecard also provides information on changes in an institution’s cost, making it possible to see if tuition has gone up or down over a certain period of time. In addition, students and their families can search by area of interest, college location, and type of college.

Watch the video below for a detailed guide on how to navigate the College Scorecard.

What does it measure?

PIRS measures three main factors: access, affordability, and outcome. All three can be matched to inequality, debt concerns, and learning quality as the above-cited reasons for establishing such a system in the first place.

• Access comes from the percentage of students who receive Pell Grants, in an effort to obtain some knowledge on how equal or unequal higher educational institutions are.
• Affordability looks at average tuition, available scholarships, and student loan default information, thus looking at debt concerns.
• Outcome measures how many people graduate, how many pursue advanced degrees, and the average income of students after graduation.

In addition to being an information hub for prospective students, the president is planning to seek legislation to allocate financial aid to those institutions that obtain high ratings on PIRS. The current administration emphasizes that before the government designates its funds according to this mechanism, the college rating system should be well established, taking into consideration all of the concerns from university administrators across the country.

In order to receive more financial aid via grants and loans, higher education institutions will have to provide the best value and improve on their performance, hence helping students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

What is the Obama Administration hoping to achieve?

The Obama Administration hopes to achieve greater accountability and transparency in higher education, especially with regard to the quality of educational institutions, student debt, and income after graduation. The system is meant to empower students and their families to make informed decisions when choosing a college or university to attend.

The president also plans to use the college rating system to aid policymakers who are allocating financial aid to higher educational institutions. It’s believed that such financial incentives will prompt colleges to improve their overall performance. The goal is to keep colleges accountable and transparent, rewarding those who will keep prices down and improve educational value.

The overall goal of the current administration is to decrease student debt and to increase access to higher education for low income students, improving quality of learning along the way.

What do critics say?

Obama’s college rating system is not without its critics who continue to debate its shortcomings and possible negative outcomes. Educational administrators, researchers, and policymakers across the country are troubled with what they see as a rather simplistic approach to rating schools, as well as reliability and validity of the data used, and predicting negative consequences for higher education.

Data and Measurement Problems

To assemble the College Scorecard System, the government obtained data from its own Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). It’s a self-reported data collection mechanism that provides information on first-time and full-time students who seek undergraduate or certificate degrees. It is evident that only a limited population group is measured, completely excluding part-time and transfer students. One of the main concerns here is that PIRS counts transfer students as “drop outs,” which essentially can produce faulty graduation rates.

In addition, as IPEDS is a self-reported tool, there is a danger of missing data elements that can be unevenly distributed depending on data collection practices and the diligence of college officials. The data on loan default rates is also concerning, as it can double-count those students who take out multiple loans.

Some experts and researchers believe that PIRS is based on faulty assumptions. The lack of validity and reliability of the data used can misguide students and their families when they are choosing which college to enroll at. The measurements are also not comprehensive, which can lead to misuse of data and produce inaccuracies in college ratings.

Simplistic Approach

PIRS has also been blamed for being rather simplistic in determining the value of colleges and universities across the country. The critique is centered on the notion that some colleges cannot keep their price tags down as they depend on state funding. One study draws parallels between community colleges in California and Florida on one side and New Hampshire and Vermont on the other. The first two are generously supported by state funds, while the latter two have much lower funding from the state. It’s clear that California and Florida community colleges are able to keep their tuition low, and New Hampshire and Vermont are forced to raise theirs.

Healthcare prices and other external factors can greatly influence tuition rates.. The danger is that those colleges that cannot keep their prices low, even if it’s not their call, will suffer the consequences. They can be punished by receiving no or significantly less funds from the federal government via grants and loans. As a result, with already low state funding and an inability to receive aid from the federal budget, they will be forced to raise their prices even more.

The college rating system also doesn’t provide a distinction between program-specific and institution-wide performance. PIRS measures only the aggregated performance of colleges, failing to recognize successes of specific departments. For example, the criminal justice department at Rutgers University is considered to have one of the most comprehensive curriculums for students who want to work in this field. At the same time, other departments at Rutgers are considered less strong. Because PIRS uses an aggregated performance mechanism, there is a possibility that Rutgers University will receive a low rating on its scorecard. As a result, fewer prospective students will enroll in the criminal justice program, which, in reality, is very strong.

Wage Differences

As was mentioned earlier, the College Scorecard will contain information on post-graduation employment. This data will be released from the Internal Revenue Service and Social Security Administration and forwarded to the Department of Education for further analysis. The main concern here is the disproportionality of wages across professions. For example, business executives and doctors earn higher wages compared to teachers and social workers. Colleges that specialize in liberal arts and the social sciences can be at a disadvantage compared to science and technology-centered schools. Thus, certain higher education institutions can receive low ratings just because of the occupations of their graduates.

Conclusion

Both data problems and the simplicity of the rating system lead to concerns about the future of the higher education sector. Will it produce the desired results or lead to negative consequences?Obama’s college rating system can improve the performance of teachers and learning practices for students; it can decrease student loan defaults and tuition prices; and it can even become an all-encompassing tool of accountability and financial aid disbursement. At the same time, it can further stratify the educational system, widening the gap between exclusive private and second-rate public colleges and universities and hurt liberal arts schools or those with already low state funding. Despite its limitations, PIRS is a starting point on a long journey in developing higher standards, reducing costs, and fostering accountability in colleges and universities across the country.

Resources

Primary

The White House: Fact Sheet on the President’s Plan to Make College More Affordable: A Better Bargain for the Middle Class

The White House: Education at a Glance

The College Affordability and Transparency Center: College Scorecard 

U-Map: The European Classification of Higher Education Institutions

Australian Government: Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency

UNISTATS: Course Assistant

 Additional

American Council on Education:  Rankings, Institutional Behavior, and College and University Choice. 

Chronicle of Higher Education: Graduation Rates by State

Chronicle of Higher Education: Has Higher Education Lost Control Over Quality?

The New York Times: Colleges Rattled as Obama Seeks Rating System

The New York Times: On Bus Tour, Obama Seeks to Shame Colleges Into Easing Costs

MoneyBox: How Bad Is the Job Market for the College Class of 2014?

U.S. News: Report: U.S. Drops in High School, College Grad Rates

Valeriya Metla

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama’s College Rating System: Will it Fix Our Higher Education Problems? appeared first on Law Street.

As of March 2012, there were roughly 11.7 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States, many of whom had brought their children with them when they crossed the border. America has been left to figure out how to deal with this massive immigration influx and to determine the best course of action for possible immigration reform. Special attention is paid to undocumented youth who were brought to America illegally as children and have been residing in the country for some time. One big question that the country is struggling to answer is should these young people receive in-state college tuition? Read on to learn about the debate.

What action has been taken?

The Obama administration started the program Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which permits undocumented youth who were brought to the US under the age of 16 and have been in the US for more than five years to work, get a driver’s license, get a loan, and go to college without the fear of being deported. These youths have also attended their local school systems through programs designed to provide undocumented youths with a K-12 education. Now, as these individuals prepare to graduate high school, they are met with an insurmountable financial wall that prevents them from attending college and pursuing high-paying careers. While DACA permits these students to attend college, they are required to pay out-of-state tuition costs based on their immigration status, which can be considerably more expensive than in-state tuition. Out-of-state tuition is often unaffordable for undocumented families. Paying in-state tuition would greatly reduce this financial burden and make college a real possibility for many undocumented students.

Several states have begun passing “tuition equity” legislation that allows undocumented youths who have graduated from state high schools to pay in-state tuition costs at state schools. Advocates see this as a model of immigration and education reform. Seventeen  states currently provide tuition equity. However, this legislation has been met with strong opposition by those who feel that offering undocumented citizens in-state tuition cheapens American citizenship and rewards illegal behavior.

What’s the argument for providing tuition equity?

Advocates argue that tuition equity could benefit undocumented students and US citizens alike by providing a clear and navigable path toward achieving the American dream. Advocates argue that these students should not be blamed for the actions of their parents, and while they are not US citizens they have grown up and received their education in this country, and cannot call any other place home.

US public school districts currently spend roughly $243,000 per student to educate undocumented youths in K-12. Many feel that this effort and taxpayer money is wasted if these students, who have worked hard throughout their K-12 education, are not given a chance at an affordable college education. While many middle-class families currently struggle to afford hefty out-of-state tuition costs for their children, those tuitions are nearly impossible for undocumented citizens to afford. Upon this realization, many undocumented youths are motivated to drop out of high school and fail to live up to their academic potential. Advocates argue that making tuition feasible would inspire more undocumented students to graduate high school, attend college, and pursue a high-paying career, which could potentially benefit US citizens and the American economy.

Having a college education would encourage more of these students to enter the job market as tax-paying American citizens. The influx of more college-trained individuals into the job market could encourage job growth through entrepreneurial enterprises and increase tax revenue from the higher salaries these individual could make by having a college degree. In the long run, advocates say, tuition equity benefits undocumented and documented citizens alike.

What’s the argument against providing in-state tuition?

Opponents of offering in-state tuition to undocumented students argue that tuition equity validates illegal immigration and is inequitable to tax-paying US citizens. The parents of undocumented students often do not pay taxes that contribute to the funding and maintenance of state colleges and universities, and opponents argue that therefore their children should be charged out-of-state tuition costs. The cost of running these educational institutions would instead be deferred to state citizens who are legal residents. Following California’s DREAM Act, a tuition equity bill signed into law in 2011, the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s office estimated that it would require an additional $65 million per year by 2016/2017 in order to provide higher education benefits to undocumented citizens.

Opponents also feel that tuition equity is inherently inequitable toward out-of-state students who are legal residents of the United States. These students would be required to pay a higher tuition merely because they happen to live in a different state than the college they are interested in attending, albeit legally. Some argue that if in-state tuition costs are offered to undocumented residents, then these same lower tuition rates should be offered to out-of-state legal citizens as well, at which point the concept of in and out of state tuition becomes moot.

Because tuition equity is largely backed by Democrats, some opponents feel that it is used merely as a political tool to attract the Latino vote and to secure a growing population for the Democratic Party. Opponents argue that tuition equity and DACA do not actually provide any real immigration reform, but rather pander to Hispanic voters. Momentum for tuition equity has been gaining steadily, however, and this debate will continue to unfold as more states struggle with questions of immigration and education.

Conclusion

The status of children who are brought into the United States illegally by their parents is a tough topic from all angles. Whether or not they should receive in-state tuition for college education continues to be a divisive fight at all levels of government. Some states have moved forward to allow it, while others continue the argument.

 Resources

Primary

Oregon State Legislature: Tuition Equity Bill HB 2787

State of New Jersey: Tuition Equality Act

Additional

USA Today: Why Christie Should Endorse Tuition Equity

Voxxi: Oregon Is One Step Away From Allowing Dreamers to Pay In-State Tuition

American Immigration Council: Tuition Equity Could Be Coming Soon to a State Near You

Students for a Democratic Society: SDS Launches National Push For Tuition Equity

Gazette Times: Tuition Equity Has A Political Agenda

Oregon Catalyst: Tuition Equity Bill: Worst Example of Agency Advocacy

Daily Californian: Children of Illegal Immigrants Should Not Go to College and Gain Legal Status

NJ Policy Perspective: To Put the “Equity” In Tuition Equity, Access to State Aid is Essential

Oregon Public Broadcasting: Tuition Equity Bill Has Backers, Doubters

Washington Post: Seven Immigrants Brought to U.S. as Children Sue For In-State Virginia College Tuition Rates

The New York Times: The Uncertain Cost of Helping Illegal Immigrants Go to College

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Just a DREAM? In-State Tuition for Undocumented Immigrants appeared first on Law Street.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-2 for an affirmative action ban on April 22 that was enacted by a Michigan constitutional amendment. Sonia Sotomayor, one of the two Justices who voted against the amendment, delivered a scathing dissent – 58 pages long – criticizing her colleagues’ affirmative ruling.

“As members of the judiciary tasked with intervening to carry out the guarantee of equal protection, we ought not sit back and wish away, rather than confront, the racial inequality that exists in our society. The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race, and to apply the Constitution with eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination.” – Justice Sotomayor

Seven other states have similar constitutional amendments that ban the use of affirmative action in the higher education enrollment process. This ruling is particularly pertinent as there is evidence that minorities as a percentage of the study body is dropping at n colleges that have executed these affirmative action bans.

Sotomayor’s dissent was not met kindly, however, as Chief Justice Roberts rebuked her on the bench.

“To disagree with the dissent’s views on the costs and benefits of racial preferences is not to ‘wish away, rather than confront’ racial inequality … People can disagree in good faith on this issue, but it similarly does more harm than good to question the openness and candor of those on either side of the debate.” – Chief Justice Roberts

The main reason as to why the Court ruled in affirmation of Michigan’s ban on affirmative action was based on a disagreement over whether the courts had the correct jurisdiction to decide matters regarding these cases, and not by voters themselves choosing directly.

Considering the earlier ruling striking down Sections Two and Three of the Voting Rights Act, people may start to wonder how this Court is taking up issues that are racially controversial. Critics of the ruling say that the Bench is attempting to skirt history by ignoring continuing trends of racism, while supporters of the rulings say that time has simply passed by when racism was at its peak in America. Watching the Supreme Court is important at this point in time, as the country changes demographically in the coming years.

—

Dennis Futoryan (@dfutoryan) is an undergrad with an eye on a bright future in the federal government. Living in New York, he seeks to understand how to solve the problematic issues plaguing Gothamites, as well as educating the youngest generations on the most important issues of the day.

Featured image courtesy of [Tony Esopi via Wikipedia]

Dennis Futoryan

Dennis Futoryan is a 23-year old New York Law School student who has his sights set on constitutional and public interest law. Whenever he gets a chance to breathe from his law school work, Dennis can be found scouring social media and examining current events to educate others about what’s going on in our world. Contact Dennis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Justices Spar Over Affirmative Action Ban appeared first on Law Street.

Lately, we’ve been hearing more and more about the mishandling of sexual assaults on college campuses. Although these allegations span years, sexual assault on college campuses is by no means a new conversation. The recent wave of outrage and advocacy began with a courageous young woman named Angie Epifano. Angie was a student at Amherst College in Massachusetts when she was raped by an acquaintance. She received little to no help from the University, and eventually published a first hand account in The Amherst Student, the student newspaper on campus. Her entire, heart-wrenching story is here (trigger warning), but the gist is that the school that she trusted institutionalized, discounted, and questioned her every move instead of providing her with appropriate and much needed resources.

The University of Connecticut, located in the sleepy northeastern countryside, has also come under fire for how they have handled sexual assault cases. Victims claim that UConn didn’t help them, and that they were discouraged from reporting the rapes to the police. One young woman, Rosemary Richie, who was raped by a football player, claims officials at UConn did not believe her.

There are stories after stories after stories on almost every single college campus in the country. Take Amanda Tripp, at the University of Indianapolis. She filed a report that she was raped on November 26, 2012. When she saw a copy almost 2 months later, the police had written, “a crime did not occur” on it. No one ever followed up with her. Or how about Landen Gambill? She reported being sexually assaulted by an ex-boyfriend. The UNC honor court subsequently found him not guilty. She was then charged herself, accused of creating an “intimidating and hostile” environment for the man who had assaulted her by charging him with such assault. Regardless of whether or not he was actually guilty, a young woman should never be scared that she might get in trouble with the school if she reports a crime.

The numbers speak for themselves: at least 1 in 4 women in college will be the victim of a sexual assault during their time in school. Colleges need to be able to provide resources for that 25% of their female population that is attacked. But as we’ve seen time after time after time, this often is not the case.

Now, these women are fighting back. The Title IX Network —an informal network of activists–has helped women at multiple schools file federal claims against the universities. The Title IX Network bills itself as “working to support all survivors, to change how colleges and universities handle sexual assault, and to change a culture where violence is normalized.” Most recently these include Amherst, UConn, and Vanderbilt University; earlier this year claims were filed against UNC, Occidental, Swarthmore, UC Boulder, Dartmouth, USC, Berkeley, and Emerson.

The complaints have been filed under both Title IX and Clery Act provisions. Title IX states that universities have a responsibility to take immediate and effective steps when allegations of sexual violence are brought forth. Under Title IX, the Department of Education can impose fines or block access to federal funds. The Clery Act requires schools to accurately disclose crimes that occur on campus. By not handling and reporting these allegations of sexual assault properly, the universities against whom complaints have been levied may be in violation.

Something has to change. Twenty-five percent of young women, twenty-five percent of my peers, should not be assaulted in the environments in which they are supposed to learn and grow. If these charges lead to any sort of change in the abhorrent way universities have been handling this issue, I say more power to the Title IX network.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead 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.

Featured image courtesy of [Wolfram Burner via Flickr]

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 Title IX Complaints Against Universities Grow appeared first on Law Street.

This week, the Supreme Court is dealing with the second case to challenge affirmative action in two years—Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action. Last session, Fisher v. University of Texas made headlines when the Supreme Court did not decide on the merits of the case, but rather determined that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals had not applied the standard of strict scrutiny that the precedents of Grutter v. Bollinger and Regents of the Univ of Cal. v. Bakke required. The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the Fifth Circuit, and in doing so, chose not to take up the constitutionality of using race as a factor in admissions. Affirmative action remained constitutional.

This new case, Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action also deals with affirmative action, but from a completely different angle. In 2006, Michigan voters passed a ballot initiative that banned state-funded schools from using affirmative action policies. They argued that affirmative action policies are discriminatory because they treat people of different races differently, and that striking down such a policy removed that potential for discrimination. They are not the only state to make this choice—Washington, Nebraska, Arizona, New Hampshire, California, and Florida also ban racial preferences in admissions. The US Court of Appeals for the 6^th Circuit struck down this ballot initiative, basing their precedents on other cases in which changes to a political process were deemed discriminatory.

There are a few obvious questions that arise from this case. First, what effect has this ban on affirmative action yielded? Does the Supreme-Court-approved constitutionality of affirmative action make it an option or a requirement for states? And finally, what will the justices decide?

Let’s start with the easiest of those three questions: what effect can we see in Michigan from the affirmative action ban? The answer: African-American and Latino enrollment at the University of Michigan has dropped since the 2006 ban. But something significantly more interesting is occurring in some of the other states that have banned affirmative action. Richard D. Kahlenberg found that many of these states adopted race-neutral policies, such as banning legacies, admitting students at the top of their high school class all across a given state, and programs for better financial aid. These states with race neutral strategies had the same levels, or higher, of minority enrollment as they did before banning affirmative action. Proponents of these policies argue that we need to focus on differences in socioeconomic class disparity, not just race. They cite the fact that poor white students only score marginally better on SATs than poor minority students as proof.

Next, does the Supreme-Court-approved constitutionality of affirmative action make it an option or a requirement? There’s no easy answer to this question, because any argument becomes somewhat cyclical. In the 2003 case Grutter v. Bollinger, also focused on Michigan, the Supreme Court stated that certain affirmative action policies that aimed to promote class diversity and evaluated numerous factors for every candidate were not unconstitutional as they did not take the form of a quota system outlawed by Regents of the Univ. of Cal. Vs. Bakke. However that does not mean that states must allow affirmative action, just that they may.

Affirmative action is a good thing. It allows greater opportunities, greater diversity, and helps thousands of students each year get into great schools where they are able to thrive. And we do know it is constitutional—the Supreme Court has affirmed as much. But will the Supreme Court strike down Michigan’s ban? Probably not. Despite recent liberal wins, this is still a conservative Court. The plaintiff, Attorney General of Michigan Bill Schuette is arguing that Michigan is being nondiscriminatory by banning policies that do not treat all races the same. The defense, the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action is proposing that affirmative action is a mechanism in which to further equal protection and equal treatment. For this court, particularly for constant swing justice Anthony Kennedy, that argument probably won’t hold up.

There’s more work to be done in ensuring that every child, regardless of race, gender, sexuality, socioeconomic class, or any other criteria that has been marginalized in our society can receive the higher education that they deserve. Whether it is accomplished through affirmative action, race-neutral policies, or something else entirely, that is a laudable goal that will take time and effort, but will ultimately benefit us all.

[Slate]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Adam Fagen via Flickr]

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 Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action To Spar With A Conservative Court appeared first on Law Street.