( en | de | ru )

 

  2. пользователь
  3. @prophe
  4. Mar2017

закладки  76

  •  

    We need to focus more on the disadvantages that poor students face much earlier in their lives The proposal to fully subsidize tuition fees in all state universities and colleges (SUCs) is not as straightforward as it seems. On the one hand, proponents in Congress say that this will help improve the plight of “financially disadvantaged but deserving students.” After all, the Constitution states that the State shall provide “accessible” and “quality” education to all (see House Bill 5905 and Senate Bill 1304). On the other hand, critics say that subsidizing college tuitions will be fraught with many problems. Not only will it be inequitable (serving as a subsidy for rich students), but also distortive (inducing some rich students to shift into SUCs) and unsustainable (requiring enormous fiscal resources yearly). In this article we argue that, although well-intentioned, the free tuition policy alone cannot make SUCs significantly more accessible to poor students. Instead, we need to focus more on the disadvantages that poor students face much earlier in their lives. Inequality of access It’s true that poor students today have a harder time gaining access to education in SUCs. Figure 1 shows the distribution of college students across income groups, both in public and private colleges. The gray bars show that – as one would expect – students in private colleges are likelier to come from richer than poorer backgrounds. If public colleges were an “equalizer” of sorts, one would expect to see an opposite trend in SUCs: students there should be likelier to come from poorer backgrounds. But as the orange bars show, this is not the case: SUC students are likelier to come from the richest income group (17.2%) than the poorest income group (12%). The share of the poorest income group is particularly lower in Luzon (7.5%) and in NCR (just 2%). Simply put, the poorest students are underrepresented in our SUCs. Subsidy to the richest students The data above point to the glaring disparity between the rich and poor’s a
    6 лет назад , @prophe
     
      Mar2017Free_tuitionUSAAccessEnglish
      (0)
      копироватьудалить
       
       
    •  

      The secretary of Wisconsin’s Department of Safety and Professional Services sought to reassure the state’s for-profit college oversight board Tuesday that a proposal to shift responsibility for regulating those schools to her agency would not weaken supervision of the industry. But members of the Educational Approval Board were skeptical of whether the state department would have the expertise to scrutinize for-profit schools and protect their students, and voted to oppose the plan in Gov. Scott Walker’s budget. “If it’s not broken, don’t fix it,” board chairman Don Madelung said. “We’re not broken.” Walker’s proposal would eliminate the agency’s board and shift its staffers’ jobs to DSPS. Speaking to EAB members, DSPS officials pitched the move as a way to complement the agency’s efforts by maintaining its 6½ full-time staff positions and pairing them with the larger department’s legal counsel, investigators, consumer complaint division and other resources. “If the EAB does go away, nothing else would,” Secretary Laura Gutierrez said. “I don’t think the regulations, I don’t think your best practices (or) the way you do business would go away. “We would be protecting the students, and that would be our focus.” Consumer advocates and government regulators have been critical of the for-profit college industry, saying some of its schools use misleading marketing and offer expensive programs that are of questionable value to graduates on the job market. After facing increased scrutiny during the Obama administration, experts anticipate for-profit schools will experience less federal oversight under President Donald Trump, which could make the role of state regulators more significant. Walker advanced a similar plan two years ago to shutter the EAB, which legislators later removed from the budget — something Madelung praised Tuesday as “common sense.” Unlike the proposal Walker announced this year, that plan would have consolidated the work of the EAB’s staff and board into a single part-time employee. Sti
      6 лет назад , @prophe
       
        Mar2017USAEnglishWisconsinfor-profit
        (0)
        копироватьудалить
         
         
      •  

        The Trump administration has taken its first shot at rules designed to protect students from expensive, low-quality colleges and career training programs. Less than a month after Betsy DeVos was sworn in as its top official, the U.S. Department of Education announced Monday evening that it would delay until July 1 an effort to crack down on career training programs that load students up with unpayable debt. The biggest winners: the more than 800 higher educational programs that claim to lead to “gainful employment” but flunked the department’s January excessive debt test—mostly for-profit art and cosmetology schools. These programs can now continue to recruit applicants (at least until July 1) without having to warn them about alumni’s oppressively high debt loads. The schools can also take this extra time to seek data showing that their graduates’ student loan bills are actually below the official “excessive debt” cutoff. That means bills must be no more than 12% of the average student’s gross earnings, as reported to the Social Security Administration, and no more than 30% of their discretionary income. That means, for example, that students considering entering, say, the Art Institute of Pittsburgh’s two-year Associate’s program in graphic design won’t necessarily be warned that the typical graduate of the program has taken on about $40,000 in debt, but finds a job paying only about $22,000 a year. The monthly financial reality for such graduates is grim. Their before-tax monthly salary works out to about $1,900. The monthly payments on a standard 10-year student loan repayment plan top $400 – or more than 20% of their gross earnings. The department said it would use the extra time to “further review the [Gainful Employment] regulations and their implementation.” The action puts the brakes on one of many last-minute moves by the Obama administration. In January, the Department of Education issued an analysis of the earnings and student debt levels of more than 8,600 higher education programs that offer pr
        6 лет назад , @prophe
         
          Department_of_EducationUSAgainful_employmentfor-profitdelayedDonald_TrumpObamaMar2017
          (0)
          копироватьудалить
           
           
        •  

          LONDON: Malaysian universities continue to improve in their world rankings based on subjects, with an increase in their overall share of places rising from 1.27 per cent to 1.51 per cent. In the just-released seventh edition of the QS World University Rankings by Subject by Quacquarelli Symonds, three Malaysian university programmes rank in the top 30. They are University of Malaya's Electrical Engineering (at 23rd) and Development Studies (at 26th); and Taylor's University's Hospitality & Leisure Management (at 29th). University of Malaya (UM) continues to be the best-performing local institution, with five subjects ranked in the global top 50. Higher Education Minister Datuk Seri Idris Jusoh congratulated the universities for their “stellar performance” in this year’s Rankings by Subject. “Having 11 subjects across four universities ranked within the world’s top 50 is a highly-commendable improvement from three subjects in 2016. “Furthermore, Malaysian universities have doubled the number of subjects ranked in the top 100 to 52. “Congratulations to UM, which achieved having five subjects placed in the top 50 and 19 subjects in the top 100. UM has excelled in various Engineering fields and for the first time, its education programme is ranked 41st. “USM has also done us proud, with four subjects in the top 50, notably with Hospitality & Leisure Management ranked 32nd and Mineral & Mining ranked 35th. “Speaking of firsts, we have a private university ranked in the world’s top 50, namely Taylor’s University, at 29th place, for Hospitality & Leisure Management; while IIUM also appears at 46th, for Theology, Divinity and Religious Studies. “I am proud that our universities have excelled across diverse areas of knowledge, from Engineering to Education, Hospitality to Environmental Sciences. “As the higher education space becomes more connected, accessible and competitive, the ability to offer high-quality education in such subjects will enable our higher education institutions to stand out worldwide, and en
          6 лет назад , @prophe
           
            MalaysiaMar2017Englishtop_ranks
            (0)
            копироватьудалить
             
             
          •  

            Current higher education policy in England is based on “bad pub economics” and ministers have failed to learn the lessons from international developments, according to a leading academic. Lorraine Dearden, professor of economics at the UCL Institute of Education and research fellow in education at the Institute for Fiscal Studies, lamented England’s 2012 trebling of fees to £9,000 and current plans in the Higher Education and Research Bill to ease the entry of new private providers as being driven by a desire to create competition. "There are very, very good economic reasons why the market alone cannot be allowed to operate in higher education,” said Professor Dearden in a keynote speech at the Central for Global Higher Education’s annual conference in London on 1 March. She cited “credit market failures” for student lending that means government has to provide loans, the fact that higher education brings “social returns” as well as private returns, “risk and uncertainty” caused by student reluctance to borrow, and “information problems” that mean prospective students cannot know the costs and benefits of their higher education until much later in life. The government’s misguided notion that price competition between universities would occur under the £9,000 cap – when in reality all have ended up charging the maximum – was “bad pub economics”, Professor Dearden said. The £9,000 fees policy failed to take into account the fact that income-contingent loans meant the repayment risk from higher fees was borne by government rather than universities or students, she added. “If you want to allow a range of fees, what is important is that the higher education institutions need to share some of the risk of non-repayment,” she continued. That would mean a system that better reflects the “true costs and benefits” of courses, Professor Dearden said. She added that there were currently “lots of economists trying to work out” how to ensure that universities “have skin in the game”. Professor Dearden also accused Jo Jo
            6 лет назад , @prophe
             
              for-profitUKEnglishMar2017entranceban
              (0)
              копироватьудалить
               
               
            •  

              I've warmed up to Gov. Andrew Cuomo's plan to make the state's public colleges and universities tuition-free for families with an income of $125,000 or less, and here's why: Private colleges don't like it. Since the governor announced his plan in January, private colleges have expressed concern. They argue that it would limit students' choices and place private schools at a competitive disadvantage. "Taxpayers should have the opportunity to have choice and to make a decision about what would be best for themselves and their kids," College of Saint Rose President Carolyn Stefanco told The Daily Gazette last month. Please. These schools aren't concerned about student choice. They're concerned about their bottom line. Making tuition free at SUNY and CUNY schools will boost their enrollment, as parents and students carefully evaluate return on investment and opt for the more affordable option. Elite private schools might not see a huge impact, but lower-ranked schools almost certainly would. Private colleges don't want to disrupt a system that serves them reasonably well, but if there's any industry that could benefit from some disruption, it's higher education. For decades, colleges and universities have been jacking up tuition and fees at an unsustainable rate. The cost of tuition at the small private college I graduated from 19 years ago has more than doubled, and there's no justification for it. Private schools have long excused their outrageous cost increases by pointing to the generosity of their financial aid offices, and noting that many students do not pay full price. But fewer people are satisfied by this explanation, largely as a result of soaring student loan debt. In a piece in the New Republic published last August, journalist David Dayen writes that private colleges are the real enemy when it comes to reforming higher education, because they "do incredibly well under the status quo. ... At the public level, states have pulled back funding for higher education, causing some of the [cost] incre
              6 лет назад , @prophe
               
                Free_tuitionMar2017New_YorkEnglish
                (0)
                копироватьудалить
                 
                 
              •  

                The Trump administration just handed an olive branch to the battered industry. he Trump administration appears poised to undo one of its predecessor’s most ambitious attempts to rein in for-profit college rapacity. The Department of Education is delaying the so-called “gainful employment” rule, in place since 2015, the Wall Street Journal’s Josh Mitchell reports. Under the Obama-era rule, the Department of Education would shut off the financial-aid spigot for higher education institutions if their typical graduate reported spending more than 30 percent of after-tax cash or 12 percent of total income on student loan payments. In other words, if a college saddles too many of its students with debt and shabby job prospects — if graduating classes debt-to-income ratios don’t look good for a few consecutive years — it will be barred from receiving Stafford loans, Pell grants, and other forms of taxpayer funding for higher education. The more than 800 schools that the Department of Education threatened in January with sanctions under the rule—98 percent of which are for-profit institutions like Full Sail University and University of Phoenix — will now have until July 1st to hire independent auditors to investigate whether the government’s damning data on their students career outcomes is wrong or flawed. Since most for-profit colleges derive most of their revenue from students’ federal financial aid packages, thousands of the schools may have eventually had to close their doors without reconsideration by the Department. The extended timeline to appeal, and the department’s promise to review the rule, could be a lifeline for an industry that was facing an unprecedented crackdown via states attorneys general lawsuits and federal enforcement actions. But, as Pacific Standard reported in 2015, this wouldn’t be the first time the industry has bounced back from a regulatory beating. For-profit college parent companies stocks have surged since Donald Trump’s election in November. Now, shareholder faith looks like it could g
                6 лет назад , @prophe
                 
                  for-profitUSADonald_TrumpDepartment_of_EducationMar2017gainful_employmentObama
                  (0)
                  копироватьудалить
                   
                   
                •  

                  President Trump’s postelection agreement to pay $25 million appeared to settle the fraud claims arising from his defunct for-profit education venture, Trump University. But a former student is now asking to opt out of the settlement, a move that, if permitted, could put the deal in jeopardy. Lawyers for the student, Sherri Simpson of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., on Monday asked a federal judge in San Diego to reject the settlement unless former students are given an opportunity to be excluded from the deal so they can sue Mr. Trump individually. If the judge, Gonzalo Curiel, decides that Ms. Simpson and potentially others should have that chance, legal experts say it could disrupt the settlement because Mr. Trump and his lawyers saw the deal as a way to resolve all of the claims, once and for all, to avoid a trial and distractions to his presidency. “If even one person could opt out of the settlement and force a trial, that might, in fact, crater the deal,” said Shaun Martin, a professor at the University of San Diego School of Law. “I’m sure Judge Curiel will be aware of that.” The agreement, announced in November, appeared to resolve years of hotly contested litigation, including two federal class-action cases in San Diego and a separate suit by Eric T. Schneiderman, the New York attorney general. Students maintained that they were cheated out of tuition through high-pressure sales tactics and misleading claims about what they would learn. At one point during the contentious case, Mr. Trump questioned Judge Curiel’s impartiality based on his Mexican heritage. Mr. Trump, who has rejected the claims and did not acknowledge fault in the settlement, posted on Twitter after the settlement announcement that he “did not have the time to go through a long but winning trial on Trump U.” Patrick Coughlin, a lawyer representing the class-action plaintiffs, said that it was a “terrific settlement” and that the objection seemed “politically motivated.” He said he feared that the objection could result in delays for students
                  6 лет назад , @prophe
                   
                    Donald_TrumpMar2017closuresuefor-profitUSAEnglish
                    (0)
                    копироватьудалить
                     
                     
                  •  

                    Several of the region's private colleges say Gov. Andrew Cuomo's proposal for free state college would have a negative effect on their schools. WBFO's Senior Reporter Eileen Buckley says members of the Medaille College community are being encouraged to write to state lawmakers to consider an increase for the Tuition Assistance Program instead of supporting the tuition-free plan for SUNY. “The lobbying efforts that we have are in full force. We are doing it individually from our desks at our various campuses,” said Dr. Kenneth Macur, president at Medaille College. Macur said he remains skeptical about how much Cuomo's plan would cost the state and taxpayers. The Governor wants students in families earning $125,000 or less to receive tuition free scholarships to all state colleges and universities. Macur is more concerned about how it might effect a student's "right to choose" a college. “More than being worried about what happens to Medaille, I’m worried about students who are forced into huge lecture halls. Forced into schools where the graduation rates aren’t as good, where the care and concern doesn’t exist as it does at Medaille and what’s going to happen to those kids,” Macur remarked. Medaille’s tuition is a little more than $27,000. About 922 of the college's students did received $2.5 million in TAP toward their tuition. “Sticker price goes up on an annual basis two, three percent, but the actual net tuition, on average, has been going down over the last three to four years,” Macur explained. “And so even though we’ve done a great job making college affordable for students in the region, we’d be penalized by the governor’s plan.” When the governor appeared last month at rally Buffalo State College to seek support his idea, he made a remark about the cost of private education. “Average student debt $29,000, $29,000 – you just can’t do it,” said Cuomo. “One of the problems with using the debt statistics in that way, you miss that the fact that private college graduates have lower default rate
                    6 лет назад , @prophe
                     
                      Free_tuitionNew_YorkUSAMar2017English
                      (0)
                      копироватьудалить
                       
                       
                    •  

                      The first class of students who went to community college for free under Tennessee Promise is graduating this spring. Some might go straight into the workforce, some plan to transfer to public universities — but private colleges are starting to make a concerted effort to recruit them, too. One of these efforts comes in the form of a scholarship, a potentially hefty one: Tennessee Promise students transferring to Lipscomb University will receive at least $10,000, making up more than a third of their tuition. The university announced the "Lipscomb Promise" scholarship last week. “A substantial amount of their education will be funded by this university," said university president Randy Lowry. "That, in partnership with state resources ... [and] with their own resources and work, should provide them with the opportunity for this kind of college experience.” This award is not actually new — Lipscomb already offered the $10,000-plus scholarship to transfer students, under a different name, in past years. Lebron Hill, a junior, says the "Lipscomb Pathways" award was an integral part of his deciding to transfer from Motlow State Community College last year. "The money was a main factor in my choice, so I'm glad I was able to get the scholarship," he says. So "Lipscomb Promise" is essentially a rebranding. But changing the wording is not insignificant — after all, the entire Tennessee Promise program showed that marketing makes a difference. The governor has acknowledged that a huge part of its success is the fact that it proactively labels community college as "free," even though it was already free for many students because they qualified for federal financial aid. Mike Krause, who oversees the Tennessee Promise program and the state's higher education commission, says he expects calling the scholarship "Lipscomb Promise" will make a difference. “I think this is a place where the brand matters. You’re able to tell a student who’s really gotten used to the Tennessee Promise message [that college is affordable for
                      6 лет назад , @prophe
                       
                        Tennessee_PromiseMar2017Free_tuitionUSATennesseeEnglish
                        (0)
                        копироватьудалить
                         
                         
                      •  

                        Buoyed by the ascendancy of Donald Trump, America’s predatory for-profit colleges are renewing their multi-front fight to destroy a key measure to hold them accountable: the gainful employment rule. The new battle plan includes pushes in Congress and before the Betsy DeVos Department of Education, plus two new lawsuits aimed at the regulation, including one, in Arizona, that has not been previously reported. It looks like this harmful effort is rapidly gaining traction. It took the Obama administration nearly eight years of battling well-paid for-profit college lobbyists and lawyers to finally enact and implement this regulation, which has a simple, common sense premise: Career training programs that, year-after-year, leave graduates mired in overwhelming debt should lose eligibility for taxpayer-funded student grants and loans. Career education should make people financially better off, not worse off, and the rule aims to channel money away from programs that do harm — and channel it toward those honest, effective colleges that are genuinely helping students build careers. For decades, many for-profit colleges, through a toxic mix of high prices, low quality, and weak job placement, have promised more than they could deliver, and yet have been getting billions annually in federal aid, much of it spent on advertising and profits, rather than education. Many veterans, single moms, displaced factory workers and miners, and others struggling to build a better future have been deceived and abused by unscrupulous college owners, whose offices are in Wall Street suites as well as strip malls. The final gainful employment rule does not demand much; only the worst programs flunk its test comparing graduate earnings with debt levels. The first round of results, reported in January, showed that 98 percent of the flunking programs were at for-profit colleges. The for-profit colleges have never stopped trying to overturn the rule, even after federal courts decisively rejected two separate industry lawsuits. Now, however,
                        6 лет назад , @prophe
                         
                          Mar2017for-profitDonald_TrumpObamaUSAEnglish
                          (0)
                          копироватьудалить
                           
                           
                        •  

                          BENGALURU: Chennai and Gurgaon-based Great Lakes Institute of Management has launched the Great Lakes International University (GLIU) in Andhra Pradesh, making it one of the first few private universities being set up in the state.
                          6 лет назад , @prophe
                           
                            Indiafirst_privateEnglishMar2017
                            (0)
                            копироватьудалить
                             
                             
                          •  

                            Alums of a disgraced for-profit college chain have spent years trying to cancel their federal student loans. For three years in federal court, the Obama Department of Education told them to keep on paying. Improbably, the Trump administration is poised to say differently. Under a preliminary accord, the federal government would invite tens of thousands of former students, who more than 20 years ago attended beauty and secretarial schools owned by defunct Wilfred American Education Corp., to petition the Education Department to cancel their unpaid debt and receive refunds on past payments, according to four people familiar with the case, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were discussing confidential settlement negotiations. The applications are almost certain to be approved, these people said, and the government would foot the bill. The deal-which is not complete and may change-would resolve a 2014 class-action lawsuit against the Education Department brought by seven former Wilfred students who claimed the feds for decades had been wrongfully collecting on debt that students needn't repay. Federal law allows borrowers to cancel their loans when their schools violate certain rules, and Wilfred routinely flouted the law by falsely certifying that its students were eligible for government loans, according to the complaint. The lawsuit claimed the department knew the loans were eligible to be forgiven, yet it made no effort to inform debtors of this right. If finalized, the settlement would represent one of the largest debt-forgiveness schemes undertaken by the Education Department. That it didn't happen under Obama, who championed student debt relief measures, and instead could happen under Trump, who in November agreed to pay $25 million to settle several lawsuits tied to his own foray into for-profit education, could upend expectations that a Trump-overseen Education Department would favor the interests of for-profit schools over those of allegedly defrauded students. Jim Margolin, a spokesman f
                            6 лет назад , @prophe
                             
                              Donald_TrumpObamaUSAMar2017English
                              (0)
                              копироватьудалить
                               
                               
                            •  

                              I’m working with a client to help fill a management level position, and last week we interviewed an applicant with three degrees from a for-profit university. As college degrees become more important for both hiring and advancement, these for-profit educational institutions are growing in number and presence. For-profit schools are just that — businesses. They are corporations, often with shareholders, that have the objective of making a profit. Education is their product. If you’re thinking about going back to school, here are some things to consider before you commit your time or your money to these businesses. Consider your objective. If you want a technical skill, the for-profit route may be for you. Most of these schools do not have entrance requirements. Money and a high school diploma or its equivalent will get you a seat in the program. If you want a college education, consider that the for-profit degrees come with limits. Credits for your work may not transfer to other programs. A bachelor of science degree may not qualify you to move into a graduate program with another school. Most employers will give preference to a candidate with a degree from a traditional university. And if you’re thinking about an advanced degree that will allow you to teach at the university level, don’t even consider the for-profit route. If your objective is flexibility, remember that many traditional universities are now offering online classes and flexible scheduling. Pay attention to accreditation. Accreditation for the university AND for specific programs is a big deal. Learn what accreditation means. Know what the standard of excellence is. Lack of appropriate accreditation may mean your degree is worth very little. Pay attention to cost. Congress is now involved in investigating the costs of for-profit schools. Many state schools are now offering online, evening and weekend programs for much less money. For example, the Georgia WebMBA program is a fully online 18-month master’s program offered through a consortium of
                              6 лет назад , @prophe
                               
                                for-profitUSAMar2017English
                                (0)
                                копироватьудалить
                                 
                                 
                              •  

                                President Donald Trump’s administration has begun relaxing restrictions on for-profit colleges, and traders in shares of companies like Strayer Education Inc. (STRA) and Capella Education Co. (CPLA) have taken note. For-profit college stocks soared in the week after the Department of Education announced a delay in the implementation of a regulation finalized in October 2014 by former President Barack Obama. Shares of Strayer Education, a holding company for Strayer University, climbed 2.5 percent in the week following the March 6 announcement, hitting a high of $81.40 shortly after Monday market open, while Capella Education, the parent of Capella University, grew 1.8 percent over the same period, surpassing $78 Monday morning. Grand Canyon Education Inc. (LOPE), the parent of Grand Canyon University, rose 3.5 percent over the past week to an all-time high of $67.49, and Laureate Education Inc. (LAUR), which counts Walden University as one of its for-profit institutions and was formerly known as Sylvan Learning Systems, saw its shares rise 0.6 percent to nearly $13 Monday. DeVry Education Group Inc. (DV), known for its DeVry University, saw a more modest 0.4 percent rise over the past week. The Department of Education initially required for-profit colleges, along with some nonprofit and public schools, to report data on the success of their job training programs by April 3, but under new Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, the date was pushed to July 1. The rule, which was originally slated for implementation on July 1, 2015, would cut back on federal funding for institutions whose programs did not lead to "gainful employment"— meaning graduates’ annual loan payments exceeded 20 percent of their income. For-profit colleges, whose attendees tend to be disproportionately female, minority and low-income, have long faced criticism for their role in the student debt crisis. Data released from the Department of Education in September linked more than 35 percent of student debt defaults in 2013 to the institutions, des
                                6 лет назад , @prophe
                                 
                                  Donald_TrumpObamafor-profitdelayedMar2017USAEnglish
                                  (0)
                                  копироватьудалить
                                   
                                   
                                •  

                                  Comeback of for-profit medical schools brings questions of reputation, quality of education After nearly a century of dormancy, for-profit medical schools are making a return in the United States. A recent paper by University researchers analyzed the history, reappearance and possible effects that these schools could have on medical education. Though at one time for-profit medical schools existed in the United States, this changed with the publishing of Abraham Flexner’s 1910 report on the state of these schools, according to the paper. There were numerous critiques of these schools in Flexner’s report, particularly of the standards, requirements, teaching and students’ clinical and research exposure. The report led to a renovation of medical teaching and the subsequent disappearance of for-profit institutions. The medical education system accepted nearly all students who could afford to pay tuition prior to 1910, Gruppuso said. “There was no standardized set of requirements for medical schools, and it was creating a real crisis in terms of quality for medical care.” In 1996, the court case United States v. American Bar Association made it possible for for-profit law schools to be established, according to the paper. Though the Liaison Committee on Medical Education had previously been opposed to for-profit medical schools, they slowly began to change their opinions after the court case and eventually allowed for for-profit medical schools to be established in 2013. According to the paper, a number of investor-owned schools, such as the Rocky Vista University College of Osteopathic Medicine, have been accredited, and more have received preliminary and provisional accreditation. Philip Gruppuso, professor of pediatrics and an author of the paper, said the main point of the article was to bring both the existence and establishment of these for-profit schools to public attention. “(This article) sheds light on the fact that not all medical schools in the United States are nonprofit institutions, so I’m not
                                  6 лет назад , @prophe
                                   
                                    for-profitmedicalUSAMar2017English
                                    (0)
                                    копироватьудалить
                                     
                                     
                                  •  

                                    The government has suffered further defeats in the House of Lords on plans in England for the teaching excellence framework and the opening up of the sector to new private providers. Earlier in the week, peers defeated the government by passing an amendment that ensures the results of the TEF should not be used to determine the fees that an institution can charge. On 8 March, the House of Lords – where the government does not have a majority – inflicted further defeats. The government now has the choice of accepting the amendments, or bidding to force through its proposals with the backing of MPs. An amendment, proposed by crossbencher Baroness Wolf, Labour peer Lord Stevenson and Liberal Democrat Lord Storey, was passed that would severely limit the government’s flagship plans to bring in new providers to compete with universities. Critics backing the amendment had warned of risks from for-profit providers gaining degree awarding powers and university status. The amendment would ensure new providers either remain subject to the same requirement to pass through four years of validation before they can gain their own degree awarding powers, or had been granted permission to use such powers by a quality assessment committee. The government had wanted private providers to be able to award degrees on a probationary basis from the start of their operation and for England’s new regulator, the Office for Students, to take over the granting of degree awarding powers. The OfS would also have to be “assured that the provider operated in the public interest and in the interest of students” to gain degree powers, says the amendment, passed by 201 votes to 186. On the TEF, peers also backed an amendment that would ensure the government still creates “a scheme to assess and provide consistent and reliable information about the quality of education and teaching”, but prevents such an exercise from being used “to create a single composite ranking of English higher education providers”, as well as ensuring that its data a
                                    6 лет назад , @prophe
                                     
                                      Mar2017UKEnglandEnglishprivatedelayed
                                      (0)
                                      копироватьудалить
                                       
                                       
                                    •  

                                      RANCHI: The state higher and technical education department plans to provide aid to private engineering and polytechnic colleges to develop infrastructural facility and increase the gross enrolment ratio of the higher education institutes. . . Sources in the higher education department said the government plans to provide up to Rs 6 crore to private engineering colleges and around Rs 3 crore to private polytechnic institutions to help them upgrade their laboratories and use smart technologies in their classrooms. There are 11 private engineering colleges and 16 private polytechnic colleges in the state. . . Department secretary Ajay Kumar Singh said, "The funds will be given to the existing colleges in instalments. An amount of Rs 2 crore and Rs 1 crore will be given as first instalment to engineering and polytechnic colleges." . . The department has laid down a host criteria for the institutes to be eligible for the aid: The institutes need to be recognised by All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) and have their financial statements of past five years audited. The colleges also need to be affiliated to state board of technical education. . . The second instalment will be given to colleges only if it is accredited by the National Board of Accreditation (NBA). . . Once the grant is provided to the colleges they will have to ensure that students from the state are enrolled in 60% of the total seats for a span of five years. . . The department will also provide land to new colleges planning to set up their campuses in state if they get AICTE recognition. . . "The national gross enrolment ratio is 23.6% while the state ratio is 13.4% only. We aim to increase this ratio to up to 30% by 2018, and for this we want more private colleges in the state," Singh said. .
                                      6 лет назад , @prophe
                                       
                                        Mar2017IndiaEnglishengineeringaid
                                        (0)
                                        копироватьудалить
                                         
                                         
                                      •  

                                        Senate Democrats want Education Secretary Betsy DeVos to explain why she’s delaying the implementation of an Obama-era rule aimed at ensuring career-training programs, specifically those at for-profit colleges, actually prepare students for good-paying jobs. In a letter to DeVos this week, Sens. Dick Durbin (Ill.), Patty Murray (Wash.) and Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) called the department’s gainful employment rule a critical protection for both students and taxpayers. On Jan. 9, the department released final debt-to-earning rates for career training programs required by the rule finalized under Obama in October 2014. Under the rule, the estimated annual loan payment of a typical graduate would have to be at or below 20 percent of his or her discretionary income or 8 percent of his or her total earnings to be considered a program that leads to gainful employment. Programs that exceed these levels would be at risk of losing their ability to participate in taxpayer-funded federal student aid programs. Late last week the department gave schools more time to appeal their ratings, which are generated using earnings data from the Social Security Administration and debt information from the department’s records and the school. Final appeals, originally due March 10, are now due July 1. But Democrats argue the rule was generous to begin with, giving schools three opportunities to appeal their rates. “According to a Department spokesperson, the delay was also due to ‘a question about whether schools can provide data to a third party,’” the senators wrote. “It is unclear how this question could not have been solved through follow-up guidance rather than a delay.” DeVos is also giving Gainful Employment Programs until July 1 to switch to a new format in meeting the requirement to disclose information about their programs, including graduation rates, tuition and fee amounts, typical student debt upon graduation and what a graduate is likely to earn. The senators asked DeVos how long
                                        6 лет назад , @prophe
                                         
                                          Mar2017EnglishUSADepartment_of_EducationDonald_TrumpObamadelayedgainful_employmentfor-profit
                                          (0)
                                          копироватьудалить
                                           
                                           
                                        •  

                                          Students who were scammed by a for-profit college back in the '80s could get their money back under the Trump administration. The Wilfred American Education Corp. used to run beauty and secretarial schools that primarily attracted low-income students, usually women. In 1988, Wilfred had 58 schools and more than 11,000 students, making it one of the largest for-profit college chains in the country. Many of those students used federal loans to pay for their education. But in 1991, Wilfred was found guilty of fraud in two different federal court cases. By law, the Department of Education should have canceled the student loans after the school was shut down. That didn't happen. Seven former Wilfred students sued President Obama's Education Department, demanding their student debt be canceled and the loan payments they made over the years be reimbursed. They were among 60,000 people who took out government-backed loans to go to Wilfred. That lawsuit was originally dismissed on a technicality. The decision was overturned when a judge said the Education Department was required to tell students if they're eligible to cancel a loan. Now, four people familiar with the case told Bloomberg the federal government is considering a deal. It would allow students to petition to cancel their debt and get refunds on past payments. The outlet notes a lawyer for the students said in a March 9 filing that they "have made substantial progress toward a final settlement," but no official agreement has been submitted to the court yet.
                                          6 лет назад , @prophe
                                           
                                            for-profitMar2017EnglishUSADonald_TrumpDepartment_of_Education
                                            (0)
                                            копироватьудалить
                                             
                                             

                                          публикации  

                                            Нет подходящих.
                                          • ⟨⟨
                                          • ⟨
                                          • ⟩
                                          • ⟩⟩