Blog dedicado a la formación en todos sus ámbitos: presencial, online, a distancia
Hola:
Una infografía sobre Social Media en el trabajo.
Un saludo
Social Media en el trabajo
Hola:
Una infografía con la Receta para los que empiezan en Twitter. Vía
Un saludo
Receta para los que empiezan en Twitter
The Post 9/11 GI Bill aims to further the education of United States servicemembers and their immediate family members, but a new government report reveals that most of those funds are going to further increase the bottomline at for-profit colleges.
Iowa senator Tom Harkin released a report [PDF] Wednesday that found for-profit colleges enrolled a record number of veterans and collected $1.7 billion in Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits during the 2012-13 school year – representing nearly a quarter of all GI benefits received during that timeframe.
To illustrate just how much money the for-profit college industry receives from servicemembers and their families, one should consider that the entire GI Bill program cost four years ago was about $1.7 billion.
FOR-PROFIT COLLEGES RAKING IN THE BIG BUCKS
The report highlights the top 10 recipients of GI Bill funds, and (no surprise here) eight of those schools are from the for-profit sector, including the soon-to-be dismantled Corinthian Colleges Inc.
All together those eight companies have received $2.9 billion in taxpayer dollars by enrolling veterans in their schools in the past five years, including $975 million during the 2012-13 school year.
To make things even more infuriating, seven of those for-profit college companies are currently under state and/or federal investigation for bogus job-placement stats, grade manipulation, and misleading marketing practices.
“While the Post-9/11 GI Bill was designed to expand educational opportunities for our veterans and servicemembers, I am concerned that it is primarily expanding the coffers of the big corporations running these schools,” Harkin says in a news release about the report. “It is evident that more needs to be done to ensure that veterans and servicemembers, who have sacrificed so much for our nation, are receiving a quality education—and that taxpayer dollars aren’t wasted on shoddy programs.”
LITTLE EDUCATION HAPPENING HERE
Of course it takes money to provide education for thousands of students, but in the case of many for-profit institutions few students actually receive a quality education, yet they pay nearly double what they would at a public university, according to the report.
For-profit institutions boast some of the lowest graduation rates in higher education.
Back in 2012 the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP), of which Harkin is chair, filed a report [PDF] that detailed just how troubling the dropout rates at for-profit schools were: 54% of students who began at for-profit institutions during the 2008-2009 school year withdrew by the summer of 2010.
In fact, nine of the schools investigated in the 2012 study had withdrawal rates of at least 60%; the highest rate clocked in at 84%.
And just how many of those companies also showed up in the top 10 recipients of GI Bill funds? Four.
• Corinthian Colleges – operator of Everest University, WyoTech and Heald College – received $63 million during the 2012-13 school year. Yet, the company’s schools had a withdrawal rate of 66.5% during the 2008-2009 term.
• Apollo Group – operator of the University of Phoenix, the College for Financial Planning and the Institute for Professional Development – received $271 million in GI funds during the last school year. During the 2008-2009 term the school recorded a withdrawal rate of 66.4%.
• Career Education Corporation (CEC)- the operators of Sanford Brown and CTU – raked in $78 million last year, but in 2008-2008 the schools had a withdrawal rate of 61.7%.
• Education Management Corporation (EDMC) – the operator of the Art Institute and Argosy – received $163 million in GI funds during the 2012-13 school year, but had a dropout rate of 63.7% during the 2008-2009 term.
While Bridgepoint – the operator of Ashford University and owner of an 84% withdrawal rate – didn’t crack the top 10 in received GI funds for the most recent school year, it did make the top 10 when the entire length of the Post 9/11 GI Bill is considered. From 2009 to 2013, the company received $101 million in Post 9/11 GI Bill funds.
NO RULES? FEW WORRIES FOR FOR-PROFIT COLLEGES
One reason these schools continue to receive millions of dollars in GI Bill funds, while only partially educating veterans and their family members, is the lack of an over-arching rule to determine the quality of programs a school offers.
Such a performance marker has been proposed twice in the form of the “gainful employment” rule. The initial rule was struck down by a court in 2011, but a second attempt was announced earlier this year.
Among the new requirements set out in the proposed regulations, institutions would have to certify that all career-education programs meet applicable accreditation requirements, along with state and/or federal licensure standards.
Programs would be deemed failing if loan payments of typical graduates exceed 30% of discretionary income or 12% of total annual income. Programs would be given a warning if a student’s loan payments amount to 20 to 30% of discretionary income, or 8 to 12% of total annual income. Discretionary income is defined as above 150% of the poverty line and applies to what can be put towards non-necessities.
Although the rule is not finalized or in effect, the Harkin report puts the eight schools receiving the most GI funds to the test. And, once again, not surprisingly, the majority fail.
When measured against the proposed gainful employment standards between 35% and 57% of the programs at Corinthian, EDMC, CEC and ITT Technical Institute would fail to demonstrate that they prepare students for employment in a recognized profession, according to the report.
“Today’s report should be a wake-up call to the federal government. It’s a serious problem that Post-9/11 GI Bill dollars are often inflating these companies’ revenues instead of actually providing a meaningful education to the men and women who earned those benefits,” Connecticut senator Chris Murphy, a member of the HELP Committee, said in a news release.
FINDING THE LOOPHOLE
So, just how does a school with a dropout rate of more than 50% that is currently under federal and state investigation receive hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funds?
Easy: There’s a so-called “loophole” in the 90/10 rule that regulates just how much federal funding for-profit schools can receive.
See, the for-profit school industry is barred from receiving more than 90% of its revenue from the Department of Education federal student aid. The remaining 10% of revenue must come from other sources, such as private investors, wealthy corporations (like Goldman Sachs) and, apparently, the GI Bill.
According to the report, at least four companies – Apollo, EDMC, ITT and Strayer – receive close to or more than half of their reported non-federal financial aid revenue from the Post 9/11 GI Bill benefit funds.
HIGH COST BUT HIGH ENROLLMENT
While Harkin’s report is full of doom and gloom there may be one twinkle of hope when it comes to for-profit colleges: fewer consumers are enrolling than in previous years.
However, that glimmer of hope is fleeting, considering record numbers of veterans continue to enroll at the schools.
The report found that enrollment of veterans at for-profit schools increased from 23% in 2009 to 31% in 2012, despite the fact that overall enrollment at the institutions has fallen in recent years.
In fact, fewer veterans are enrolling in traditional public universities; enrollment in that sector dropped from 62% in 2009 to 50% in 2013.
That’s a shame, too, because attending a public university would save taxpayers millions of dollars each year. The average tuition at a public university is just $3,914 versus the $7,972 average tuition cost at for-profit schools.
It’s unclear exactly why more veterans are choosing for-profit colleges over more economically-priced and recognized public schools, but there’s a pretty good chance it has something to do with for-profit’s purported convenience and aggressive recruiting methods.
CHANGE THINGS RIGHT THIS MINUTE
So, while the GI Bill was approved after D-Day as a way to educate the people who serve our country, the increased use of its benefits at for-profit colleges could be hurting veterans more than helping them.
Harkin concludes that to better ensure the future education of veterans and their families, it is crucial that the federal government establish rules to track how veterans fare in the higher education system and that provisions be made to strengthen the 90/10 rule.
“It is our responsibility as a country to serve those who serve us and to preserve the purpose of the GI Bill – to provide veterans with sound educational opportunities that lead to economic security and advancement,” he writes in the report. “Only then will the Post-9/11 GI Bill prove to be the success that the post-World War II GI Bill has been.”
Hola:
Una infografía sobre el futuro del Internet de las cosas.
Un saludo
Source:LiveScience
Hola:
Una infografía con los 10 productos más vendidos de la Historia.
Un saludo
When you’re turning to a sex manual from the 1920s for help in your failing marriage, well, let’s just say you can’t blame a book if it can’t be revived. But at least the family of a library patron who failed to return a 1926 how-to guide all the way back in 1959 has managed to finally bring it back, albeit 54 years late.
Over at the the Mid-Manhattan Library’s Biblio File blog (h/t to Pix11 News), Managing Librarian Billy Parrott writes of an oddball return from 2013.
A family member who was going through the now deceased library patron’s stuff in Arizona found a library book he’d failed to return more than 50 years ago – Ideal Marriage by Th.H. Van de Velde, M.D., written around 1926, was supposed to be returned in 1959, Parrott explains.
And it seems the “very wordy and very scientific” manual regarding bedroom business didn’t do much to keep the man’s marriage thriving, “a shocked in-law” wrote in a note along with the returned tome.
“We found this book amongst my late brother-in-law’s things,” the note read. “Funny thing is the book didn’t support his efforts with his first (and only) marriage… it failed! No wonder he hid the book! So sorry!!”
Who knows how many other marriages could’ve been helped by that manual, if only it’d been returned after two weeks on time. This is why you should always return books on time, kids! You never know whose marriage you could be ruining.
Better Late Than Never [Biblio File]
“I am deeply troubled by your July 25, 2014 announcement that Verizon Wireless intends to slow down some customers’ data speeds on your 4G LTE network,” writes the Chair in his letter [PDF] to Verizon Wireless CEO Daniel “fetch me a flaggon of” Mead.
Unlike some data-throttling plans that automatically slow the speeds for those users who gobble up gigabytes because they love watching House of Cards on their phones a little too much, Verizon’s Network Optimization only throttles data when those heavy users are currently connected to a cell site experiencing high demand.
The nation’s largest wireless provider justifies the continued bending of the meaning of “unlimited” by saying that Optimization is needed for “network management.”
The FCC already has a definition of what defines reasonable network management practices, clarifying that they must be “appropriate and tailored to achieving a legitimate network management purpose, taking into account the particular network architecture and technology of the broadband Internet access service.”
In his letter to Mead, Wheeler reminds VZW that “‘Reasonable network management’ concerns the technical management of your network; it is not a loophole designed to enhance your revenue streams.”
The Chair says it is “disturbing… that Verizon Wireless would base its ‘network management’ on distinctions among its customers’ data plans, rather than on network architecture or technology.”
He gives examples of legitimate network manager purposes, like “ensuring network security and integrity… by addressing traffic that is harmful to the network; addressing traffic that is unwanted by end users… and reducing or mitigating the effects of congestion on the network.”
But, writes Wheeler, “I know of no past Commission statement that would treat as ‘reasonable network management’ a decision to slow traffic to a user who has paid, after all, for ‘unlimited’ service.”
“What is your rationale for treating customers differently based on the type of data plan to which they subscribe, rather than network architecture or technological factors?” he asks Mead, adding that he wants the CEO to provide an explanation for Verizon’s statement that, “If you’re on an unlimited data plan and are concerned that you are in the top 5% of data users, you can switch to a usage-based data plan as customers on usage-based plans are not impacted.”
Verizon’s answers to these questions, and how the FCC responds, could have a huge impact on the wireless industry as Verizon is not the only carrier who throttles data on users with so-called “unlimited” plans.
Hola:
Una infografía que nos dice que Apple y Samsung pierden terreno frente a los chinos.
Un saludo
You will find more statistics at Statista
