Hire Hopes
Jun 14th 2011, 16:13 by The Economist
Which countries are most optimistic about hiring?
THE outlook for employment in the third quarter of this year is positive in 35 of the 39 countries and territories covered by Manpower, an employment-services firm. The net balance of employers expecting to increase the size of their workforces in the next three months is highest in India and Brazil, at 47 and 37 percentage points respectively. In Italy and Spain employers have been mostly negative about job prospects since early 2008, and their outlook is getting gloomier. By contrast, German and Canadian companies have seen a quick recovery, and report their most positive hiring intentions since the downturn. Even with the opening of its borders to the European Union’s eastern workers in May, Germany's unemployment has been falling sharply. The central bank recently referred to its “extremely favourable labour market developments”.
shaun39 wrote:
What a depressing outlook - especially for Spain, with unemployment already touching on 21%.
Spain has open access to the whole of the EU market, has excellent assets and a well educated/ skilled workforce.
Why can't businesses employ Spain's labor and capital assets? Why do Spaniards not seek employment in Germany, the Netherlands, Austria or Sweden?
Depressed domestic demand doesn't explain the magnitude of Spanish unemployment.
While a combination factors are clearly in play, something is obviously in direct competition with employment: generous welfare payments, subsidized but badly located housing (whether through government or with parents, etc) and black market activity.
Possible solutions: cut benefits to a level significantly below an average starting salary. End all subsidies tied to specific accommodation. Cut all benefit payments to anybody living with (non-disabled) parents.
Do the above: people will move to parts of the EU with better employment prospects; people will leave their parents' homes to seek employment in parts of Spain with better employment prospects; people will accept lower paying jobs as an alternative to idleness.
Spain could go even further: it could replace all benefits (other than health, pensions and disability) with a right to 40 hours of work a week (at 4 euros/ hour).
Other required measures: deregulate employment contracts; cut corporate taxes and local business taxes; get tough on organized crime (it would help if consumption and supply of drugs were entirely legalized; the income tax system were simplified; and there were better use of modern information systems for tracking personal and business transactions).
The deficit would disappear; unemployment would collapse; exports would soar; standards of living would fall (in the short term); business investment would recover; productivity would resume an upwards trend (after the initial hit from incorporating less skilled workers); standards of living would resume an upwards trajectory.
Recommend (20)PermalinkReport abuse
Samkaie wrote: Jun 14th 2011 6:32 GMT
@Calm Incence,
Just out of curiosity,what was your major? And where are you from?
I hope you wouldn't find this personal.
Recommend (17)PermalinkReport abuse
Ed (Brazil) wrote: Jun 14th 2011 7:49 GMT
All countries in this chart can survave going bellow zero for some time, except one: China.
They don't let us, nor their people, to see it on TV, but protests are there... China is a gun powder barrel whose owner has to keep on moving away from the fire that get closer everyday.
Italy and Spain, don't you think the only way you will go back in black is to stop the easy short term solutions and leave the Euro ?
"The Economist", where is Brazil ? I bet Brazil is between Canada gemany and China. If its above, its a buble...
Britain, you are Japan tomorrow. Actuallly, old, earthquake tsunami hit Japan generated much more jobs than you !
India, you are the only hope the World has for the decade that is beggining. Chinese don't play fair with their currency, so the world will face them sometime in the near future. But in order to do that, the world needs to find a replacement. You are the one. Hope you accept the invitation. Otherwise, we might get ready for a period of constant financial turmoil...
"The age of leverage". It will end with unimaginable defaults (not now), some ex-rich countries (Argentina is the worst of examples - in 1900 they had the world's 5th GDP per person). US is no longer the Rome of economics, and the question is, will it be able to sustain its position as the Rome of military ?
Recommend (33)PermalinkReport abuse
Escha wrote: Jun 14th 2011 8:07 GMT
Apart from Brazil's data another important information is missing: The evolution of the workforce is quite different: shrinking populations in Japan and Germany make it increasingly difficult to hire enough skilled workers, i.e. engineers. However, immigration - as suggested by shaun39 - is not an easy solution, not least because of language difficulties. Have you ever tried to learn German (not to mention Japanese) to a level required by employers? In contrast growing populations in India, China and the US require much greater job growth.
Recommend (15)PermalinkReport abuse
vmoriz wrote: Jun 14th 2011 10:00 GMT
@shaun39 I liked your macro review, and liked the proposals you made. I'm open to move to countries like Germany, Sweden or Austria. The question is, apart from all the good forecasts those countries report about labour market, are there companies really interested in hiring spaniards? At least from my experience it is not so easy, with the skills and seniority I'm looking for.
Feel free to connect via linkedIn:
http://linkd.in/connect2vfernandez
Recommend (17)PermalinkReport abuse
russelbertrand wrote: Jun 14th 2011 10:00 GMT
Escha wrote "In contrast growing populations in India, China and the US require much greater job growth."
US is shrinking not growing i.e. baby boomers and greatest generation. Also, China has to many old people and to few young workers problem caused by mandatory 1 child laws. Which it seems most US families now practice.
Recommend (15)PermalinkReport abuse
An Drew wrote: Jun 14th 2011 10:12 GMT
Britain's Confidence Fairy seems to be doing pretty well.
Recommend (16)PermalinkReport abuse
Murilo Assis wrote: Jun 14th 2011 10:19 GMT
In Brazil there is a sharp shortage of engineers, technicians, researchers in the following areas: bulding, petrochemical, IT.
I strongly suggest those people that are unenployed in Europe/USA to have closer look in Brazil.
I am brazilian and according to some news I have lately read in newspapers and TV, some projects have been delayed due to lack of people with skills on the a.m. fields.
Due to Olimpic Games, World Cup, Pre-salt layer, the booming areas are as follow: Petrol (pre-salt layer), Buldings (house, dam, airports, ports, ethanol mills, agricultural research, transport and so on...)
For further information Google companies like: PETROBRÁS, EMBRAER, Norberto Odebrecht, EMBRAPA, CAMARGO CORREA, COSAN, COPERSUCAR (all World Class companies).
Needless to say it is necessary you guys know to communicate in portuguese or at least spanish as second language.
Good Luck you!
Murilo Assis
Recommend (14)PermalinkReport abuse
Steve Thompson wrote: Jun 14th 2011 10:23 GMT
It's interesting to see that the prospects in for employment in the United States are on a very modest uptrend. That said, it is also interesting to note that the wages paid for many jobs in America have not grown in real terms for decades. Here's an article that shows how little incomes have risen in real terms in America over the past 30 years:
http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2011/02/working-in-america-once-aga...
Recommend (13)PermalinkReport abuse
Cloudwarrior wrote: Jun 14th 2011 10:25 GMT
I sure wish people would learn the difference between an ageing population and a shrinking population.
@(Ed) Brazil
"Britain, you are Japan tomorrow. Actually, old"
Two totally different countries other than the fact they are island kingdoms. Yes, Japan's population is going to start shrinking - it hasn't yet though but almost any day now. It's population is estimated to shrink by over 30 million in the next 40 years - not just through a low birthrate but pretty much zero immigration. It is ageing at a rapid rate.
Britain on the other hand, whilst ageing is expected to have an extra 10 million people in the same time.
Ageing yes, shrinking no! A very shallow comparison.
@russelbertrand
"US is shrinking not growing i.e. baby boomers and greatest generation. Also, China has to many old people and to few young workers problem caused by mandatory 1 child laws. Which it seems most US families now practice."
Again, the US population is NOT shrinking. Whilst it is getting older, it is not ageing at anywhere near the pace of other countries, especially places like Japan, South Korea and China.
It's population is expected to grow by about a third in the next 40 years to over 440 million. Hardly shrinking now. Please find me a rich, developed country that is expected to grow by nearly 30%.
As for China, that is a very shallow analysis of the country's population. At this stage, China does not have too many old people, though it is lacking in younger people.
But for at least the next five years, China will enjoy the economic dividend of having it's largest working age cohort ever. However, from about 2015 even this cohort will start to rapidly shrink and THEN China will have the burden of having too many old people. (for those that disagree on my claim, please don't attack the sentiment but attack the facts - they are there provided by the Chinese government for all to see).
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Friday, June 3, 2011
APSCU on Gainful Employment: Trust but Verify
For more information:
Mary Gotschall Bob Cohen
202-336-6744 202-336-6836
mary.gotschall@apscu.org bob.cohen@apscu.org
APSCU on Gainful Employment: Trust but Verify
Question about Fundamental Legal Authority Remains
WASHINGTON, DC – June 1, 2011 – The Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities issued the following statement in response to the Department of Education’s release of the gainful employment rule:
We remain very concerned that the gainful employment regulation, while reflecting the fact that the Department has listened to the sector and made changes to its initial proposal, is still using the same ill-advised metric approach to this matter and is clearly outside of its statutory authority. Notwithstanding the changes, the real question is how the regulation will impact students, particularly non-traditional students served by our institutions. We will not know the answer to that until we have had the opportunity to run an independent analysis of the Department’s metric. Our concern is that the regulation will still penalize programs with great outcomes while allowing under-performing programs to continue. We need to trust but verify the impact of the new regulation. The APSCU Board will review the regulation’s impact on students carefully before deciding its next steps.
About APSCU
The Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities is a voluntary membership organization of accredited, private postsecondary schools, institutes, colleges and universities that provide career-specific educational programs. APSCU has more than 1,900 members that educate and support approximately two million students each year for employment in over 200 occupational fields. APSCU member institutions provide the full range of higher education programs: Master's and doctoral degree programs, two- and four-year associate and baccalaureate degree programs, and short-term certificate and diploma programs. Visit APSCU at www.apscu.org. On September 22, 2010, APSCU changed its name from the Career College Association.
Mary Gotschall Bob Cohen
202-336-6744 202-336-6836
mary.gotschall@apscu.org bob.cohen@apscu.org
APSCU on Gainful Employment: Trust but Verify
Question about Fundamental Legal Authority Remains
WASHINGTON, DC – June 1, 2011 – The Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities issued the following statement in response to the Department of Education’s release of the gainful employment rule:
We remain very concerned that the gainful employment regulation, while reflecting the fact that the Department has listened to the sector and made changes to its initial proposal, is still using the same ill-advised metric approach to this matter and is clearly outside of its statutory authority. Notwithstanding the changes, the real question is how the regulation will impact students, particularly non-traditional students served by our institutions. We will not know the answer to that until we have had the opportunity to run an independent analysis of the Department’s metric. Our concern is that the regulation will still penalize programs with great outcomes while allowing under-performing programs to continue. We need to trust but verify the impact of the new regulation. The APSCU Board will review the regulation’s impact on students carefully before deciding its next steps.
About APSCU
The Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities is a voluntary membership organization of accredited, private postsecondary schools, institutes, colleges and universities that provide career-specific educational programs. APSCU has more than 1,900 members that educate and support approximately two million students each year for employment in over 200 occupational fields. APSCU member institutions provide the full range of higher education programs: Master's and doctoral degree programs, two- and four-year associate and baccalaureate degree programs, and short-term certificate and diploma programs. Visit APSCU at www.apscu.org. On September 22, 2010, APSCU changed its name from the Career College Association.
Monday, May 9, 2011
The Do’s of Writing a Spectacular Cover Letter
The old saying, "You only have one chance to make a first impression," is definitely true when meeting someone in person, and it is just as important when you are writing to someone regarding a potential job opportunity. Writing a stellar cover letter becomes even more important in today’s job market when there are so many applicants competing for the same position. You need to set yourself apart from the other applicants. Below are some ideas to consider when writing a cover letter so you can be the one that stands out!
Do be Specific: When possible, address the cover letter to a specific person rather than "To Whom it May Concern." Do your best to research the person responsible for hiring. If it is not listed in the job description, call Human Resources or the Department and find out to whom it should be addressed.
Do be Concise: Cover letter should be one page long and divided into 3-4 paragraphs.
The first paragraph should indicate the reason you are writing and how you heard about the position. Try to open with an attention grabbing, yet professional, sentence. For example, "A proven track record in managerial accounting makes me the perfect candidate for this position," or, "12 years of experience in corporate advertising is the expertise that Smith Company needs."
The second paragraph should be used to explain your qualifications and highlight with specific examples how your skills match what the employer is seeking. For example, saying, "I am an effective sales manager," doesn't actually convey anything to the reader. Instead, try saying, "Over the past year, I have increased sales by over 150% bringing in over $300,000 in sales." Employers love proof that supports what you are saying.
The third paragraph should be used as a closing paragraph to thank the reader for their consideration and to request an opportunity to meet to discuss the position further. You should also provide your contact information (phone number/email) so the employer knows how to reach you. Another option is to be more proactive and state a follow-up action on your part. For example, "I will contact you within the next several days to set-up a time to talk." Then, make sure you actually do what you said you were going to do!
Do Customize: Although you may be sending out cover letters and resumes to multiple companies, do not let the companies know this by creating a generic template letter. For example, instead of writing, "I am very interested in working for your company," customize it by replacing "your company" with the actual company name. Additionally, make sure you address the specific company’s needs with your talents. Employers can tell when you are using a "one size fits all" type cover letter and they don’t like it! By taking a few extra minutes to state the company’s name and addressing how you can benefit them, you could set yourself apart from a generic cover letter.
Do Proofread: If you have grammatical errors or misspellings, this can immediately disqualify you from being considered for a position. Employers often view this as being careless and an inability to write effectively. Always proofread and, when possible, have a friend proofread it as well.
The goal of the cover letter is to grab the reader’s attention by convincing him you are a great candidate, make her want to read your resume and, of course, call you in for an interview so you can brilliantly sell yourself in person just like you did on paper! Good luck!
http://www.higheredjobs.com/career/CoverLetterDos.cfm?utm_source=IU%2B5%2F4%2F11&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Job%2BTip
Do be Specific: When possible, address the cover letter to a specific person rather than "To Whom it May Concern." Do your best to research the person responsible for hiring. If it is not listed in the job description, call Human Resources or the Department and find out to whom it should be addressed.
Do be Concise: Cover letter should be one page long and divided into 3-4 paragraphs.
The first paragraph should indicate the reason you are writing and how you heard about the position. Try to open with an attention grabbing, yet professional, sentence. For example, "A proven track record in managerial accounting makes me the perfect candidate for this position," or, "12 years of experience in corporate advertising is the expertise that Smith Company needs."
The second paragraph should be used to explain your qualifications and highlight with specific examples how your skills match what the employer is seeking. For example, saying, "I am an effective sales manager," doesn't actually convey anything to the reader. Instead, try saying, "Over the past year, I have increased sales by over 150% bringing in over $300,000 in sales." Employers love proof that supports what you are saying.
The third paragraph should be used as a closing paragraph to thank the reader for their consideration and to request an opportunity to meet to discuss the position further. You should also provide your contact information (phone number/email) so the employer knows how to reach you. Another option is to be more proactive and state a follow-up action on your part. For example, "I will contact you within the next several days to set-up a time to talk." Then, make sure you actually do what you said you were going to do!
Do Customize: Although you may be sending out cover letters and resumes to multiple companies, do not let the companies know this by creating a generic template letter. For example, instead of writing, "I am very interested in working for your company," customize it by replacing "your company" with the actual company name. Additionally, make sure you address the specific company’s needs with your talents. Employers can tell when you are using a "one size fits all" type cover letter and they don’t like it! By taking a few extra minutes to state the company’s name and addressing how you can benefit them, you could set yourself apart from a generic cover letter.
Do Proofread: If you have grammatical errors or misspellings, this can immediately disqualify you from being considered for a position. Employers often view this as being careless and an inability to write effectively. Always proofread and, when possible, have a friend proofread it as well.
The goal of the cover letter is to grab the reader’s attention by convincing him you are a great candidate, make her want to read your resume and, of course, call you in for an interview so you can brilliantly sell yourself in person just like you did on paper! Good luck!
http://www.higheredjobs.com/career/CoverLetterDos.cfm?utm_source=IU%2B5%2F4%2F11&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Job%2BTip
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Alphabets for a cause
http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-features/tp-metroplus/article1025801.ece
Interview Troy Swanson aims to set up more schools in India to make education accessible to all
A for Amsterdam, B for building schools and C for charity and you have all the basic information about the AlphaBet Club, an NGO headquartered in Amsterdam that works towards building schools for charity. It was founded by Troy Swanson, an ex-techie, who worked with Microsoft before he abandoned his cushy corporate job to make a difference.
“I have been in and out of India several times in the past year, trying to understand the country better,” says Troy who was recently in Bangalore to set up a school.
For the past 10 months he had been raising money with his team for their project in India.
They recruit teachers who live in the area and the cooking and cleaning staff is hired from the slums. “Teachers who accept to work with slum children need to be passionate about teaching. We work around a unique concept which follows an American curriculum and the learning is more hands on.”
“Our goal is to get children of the streets and into classrooms, get them an education, at least one nutritious meal a day and access to medical attention,” says Troy.
According to Troy parents need to realise the importance of an education for their children and want for their children to continue being in school.
“If we have gotten through to the parents and have helped them understand how vital an education is for their children that is half the battle won."
"We give these parents a safe place for their children to learn and grow for four to five hours a day that also gives the parents a chance to go out and earn a living.”
Troy is now urging multinational companies to look into his cause as a part of their corporate social responsibility.
“Companies have the money, and are willing to give, all they ask for is transparency, and I will assure that to them.”
CATHERINE RHEA ROY
Interview Troy Swanson aims to set up more schools in India to make education accessible to all
A for Amsterdam, B for building schools and C for charity and you have all the basic information about the AlphaBet Club, an NGO headquartered in Amsterdam that works towards building schools for charity. It was founded by Troy Swanson, an ex-techie, who worked with Microsoft before he abandoned his cushy corporate job to make a difference.
“I have been in and out of India several times in the past year, trying to understand the country better,” says Troy who was recently in Bangalore to set up a school.
For the past 10 months he had been raising money with his team for their project in India.
They recruit teachers who live in the area and the cooking and cleaning staff is hired from the slums. “Teachers who accept to work with slum children need to be passionate about teaching. We work around a unique concept which follows an American curriculum and the learning is more hands on.”
“Our goal is to get children of the streets and into classrooms, get them an education, at least one nutritious meal a day and access to medical attention,” says Troy.
According to Troy parents need to realise the importance of an education for their children and want for their children to continue being in school.
“If we have gotten through to the parents and have helped them understand how vital an education is for their children that is half the battle won."
"We give these parents a safe place for their children to learn and grow for four to five hours a day that also gives the parents a chance to go out and earn a living.”
Troy is now urging multinational companies to look into his cause as a part of their corporate social responsibility.
“Companies have the money, and are willing to give, all they ask for is transparency, and I will assure that to them.”
CATHERINE RHEA ROY
Thursday, March 3, 2011
For-Profits and Military Money March 2, 2011
WASHINGTON — The Defense Department should increase its oversight of institutions receiving Tuition Assistance Program funds to prevent potential waste and abuse, a new Government Accountability Office report finds.
The tuition program provides money to active duty military personnel who want to attend college while serving, either via distance education or at installations on military bases. In the 2009 fiscal year, more than 376,000 servicemen and women participated in the program, receiving more than $517 million in tuition assistance. In recent months, Democratic senators have spotlighted allegations that several for-profit colleges are abusing this program, especially in how they recruit military personnel.
Released Tuesday, in advance of today’s Senate hearing entitled “Preventing Abuse of the Military's Tuition Assistance Program,” the GAO report concludes that the Defense Department does not focus its oversight efforts on institutions at which there may be an increased risk for problems, has little accountability in its education quality review process, and lacks a centralized system to track complaints.
Additionally, the report notes that the Defense Department reviewed academic courses and services provided only by institutions offering traditional classroom instruction at military installations, and did not review distance education courses, which accounted for 71 percent of courses taken by beneficiaries in fiscal 2009.
Without more oversight, the GAO report argues, institutions receiving tuition assistance funds may engage in “improper or questionable marketing practices.” Though Defense Department officials interviewed for the report noted they don’t keep official records of complaints, they “recalled that most of the instances of a school engaging in improper or questionable marketing practices” have involved for-profit institutions.
For example, Pentagon officials revealed to GAO investigators that one unnamed for-profit institution was charging higher tuition rates to servicemen and women than to civilians and also offering servicemen and women $100 gas cards upon course completion. They also noted that a representative of another unnamed for-profit institution repeatedly called and e-mailed a service member “during day and evening hours” after he chose not to attend that institution.
In closing, the GAO report offers recommendations to improve the Defense Department’s oversight of the tuition program, including mandating that institutions respond to recommendations made by third-party reviews of their programs, creating a centralized process to track complaints against institutions, and requiring state authorization for all institutions.
Legislators Respond to Report
"Because of the high costs, high withdrawal rates, and high default rates among the general student population, combined with troubling stories I have heard from veterans, I am deeply concerned that there is inadequate oversight of our nearly $30 billion in federal aid to for-profit schools, and this report by the GAO confirms my concerns,” Senator Tom Harkin, Iowa Democrat and chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, said in a statement about the report.
Sen. Harkin will testify about his investigation of for-profit institutions at today's hearing, which is hosted by Senator Tom Carper, a Delaware Democrat and chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services and International Security.
“Over the past year, several reports have indicated that some institutions have taken advantage of our military personnel and have failed to deliver the quality of education they promised to our men and women in uniform,” wrote Senator Carper in a statement about the GAO report and today’s hearing. “The accounts of abuse range from deceptive recruitment practices, to schools' hollow promises about transferability of credits, to students becoming saddled with unnecessary debt. This is troubling news, and it raises some serious questions about the Department of Defense's ability to prevent against schools' abuse of the Tuition Assistance Program. We demand so much of our men and women in uniform. We must also demand more from our schools and get better results from our government."
For-Profit Advocates Question GAO
Though legislators are focusing their attention on the current GAO report, many for-profit college advocates still have not gotten over the GAO’s last report on for-profit colleges, which they allege manipulated data and misstated facts.
Penny Lee, managing director of the Coalition for Educational Success, a career college advocacy group, said the GAO’s “reputation has been tarnished” as a result of its last report, which the agency later had to revise. (Harkin defended the GAO’s revisions last December in an Inside Higher Ed essay.) Until the GAO “fully addresses” the issues in last year's report, Lee said she and her colleagues will remain dubious of its further reports and recommendations. The GAO announced Wednesday that it was restructuring and renaming the team responsible for the report on for-profit institutions.
Harris Miller, president of the Association of Private Sector College and Universities, which represents for-profit institutions, seconded Lee’s demand that the GAO retract its prior report. Still, he said he would not hold what he saw as the last report’s errors against this GAO report, which he said he thought was “up to [the agency's historical] standards.”
“Still, I don’t agree with everything in it,” said Miller, noting that he would have preferred that the report leave out the specific examples of abuses perpetrated by for-profit institutions, which he called “hearsay.” He also said he took issue with the recommendation that all institutions must be state approved to be TAP-eligible, a tactic the Education Department is now using for Pell Grant eligibility. APSCU is currently suing to stop this Education Department requirement.
Representatives from some specific for-profit institutions were much more accepting of the GAO report.
Jim Sweizer, vice president of military programs at American Military University, said he appreciates the oversight suggested by the GAO report.
“We do not engage in any of those [questionable] practices here at [the American Public University System],” Sweizer said. “It would be hypocritical of me to be against them my whole military education career and then come here and suddenly be for them.… We feel we’re in full compliance. The extra scrutiny doesn’t bother us at all. We welcome it. We’ll do whatever it takes.”
Government Seeks New Quality Monitor
The GAO report also noted that the four-year, $3.7 million contract that the Pentagon had with the American Council on Education to monitor course quality was not renewed after the end of last year, and thus no review will be conducted until later this year — a lapse that concerns legislators like Carper. The Defense Department is seeking a new contractor and hopes to resume reviews by Oct. 1, 2011.
Jim Selbe, assistant vice president for lifelong learning at ACE, said the criticism levied in the GAO report about the monitoring of course quality had more to do with the charge given to ACE in the Defense Department contract than with ACE’s work itself. He noted that the contract would need to be revised so that more TAP-eligible institutions could be reviewed. Only when a new contract was available, detailing what work would need to be done, would ACE consider whether to seek the contract again, Selbe said.
The tuition program provides money to active duty military personnel who want to attend college while serving, either via distance education or at installations on military bases. In the 2009 fiscal year, more than 376,000 servicemen and women participated in the program, receiving more than $517 million in tuition assistance. In recent months, Democratic senators have spotlighted allegations that several for-profit colleges are abusing this program, especially in how they recruit military personnel.
Released Tuesday, in advance of today’s Senate hearing entitled “Preventing Abuse of the Military's Tuition Assistance Program,” the GAO report concludes that the Defense Department does not focus its oversight efforts on institutions at which there may be an increased risk for problems, has little accountability in its education quality review process, and lacks a centralized system to track complaints.
Additionally, the report notes that the Defense Department reviewed academic courses and services provided only by institutions offering traditional classroom instruction at military installations, and did not review distance education courses, which accounted for 71 percent of courses taken by beneficiaries in fiscal 2009.
Without more oversight, the GAO report argues, institutions receiving tuition assistance funds may engage in “improper or questionable marketing practices.” Though Defense Department officials interviewed for the report noted they don’t keep official records of complaints, they “recalled that most of the instances of a school engaging in improper or questionable marketing practices” have involved for-profit institutions.
For example, Pentagon officials revealed to GAO investigators that one unnamed for-profit institution was charging higher tuition rates to servicemen and women than to civilians and also offering servicemen and women $100 gas cards upon course completion. They also noted that a representative of another unnamed for-profit institution repeatedly called and e-mailed a service member “during day and evening hours” after he chose not to attend that institution.
In closing, the GAO report offers recommendations to improve the Defense Department’s oversight of the tuition program, including mandating that institutions respond to recommendations made by third-party reviews of their programs, creating a centralized process to track complaints against institutions, and requiring state authorization for all institutions.
Legislators Respond to Report
"Because of the high costs, high withdrawal rates, and high default rates among the general student population, combined with troubling stories I have heard from veterans, I am deeply concerned that there is inadequate oversight of our nearly $30 billion in federal aid to for-profit schools, and this report by the GAO confirms my concerns,” Senator Tom Harkin, Iowa Democrat and chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, said in a statement about the report.
Sen. Harkin will testify about his investigation of for-profit institutions at today's hearing, which is hosted by Senator Tom Carper, a Delaware Democrat and chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services and International Security.
“Over the past year, several reports have indicated that some institutions have taken advantage of our military personnel and have failed to deliver the quality of education they promised to our men and women in uniform,” wrote Senator Carper in a statement about the GAO report and today’s hearing. “The accounts of abuse range from deceptive recruitment practices, to schools' hollow promises about transferability of credits, to students becoming saddled with unnecessary debt. This is troubling news, and it raises some serious questions about the Department of Defense's ability to prevent against schools' abuse of the Tuition Assistance Program. We demand so much of our men and women in uniform. We must also demand more from our schools and get better results from our government."
For-Profit Advocates Question GAO
Though legislators are focusing their attention on the current GAO report, many for-profit college advocates still have not gotten over the GAO’s last report on for-profit colleges, which they allege manipulated data and misstated facts.
Penny Lee, managing director of the Coalition for Educational Success, a career college advocacy group, said the GAO’s “reputation has been tarnished” as a result of its last report, which the agency later had to revise. (Harkin defended the GAO’s revisions last December in an Inside Higher Ed essay.) Until the GAO “fully addresses” the issues in last year's report, Lee said she and her colleagues will remain dubious of its further reports and recommendations. The GAO announced Wednesday that it was restructuring and renaming the team responsible for the report on for-profit institutions.
Harris Miller, president of the Association of Private Sector College and Universities, which represents for-profit institutions, seconded Lee’s demand that the GAO retract its prior report. Still, he said he would not hold what he saw as the last report’s errors against this GAO report, which he said he thought was “up to [the agency's historical] standards.”
“Still, I don’t agree with everything in it,” said Miller, noting that he would have preferred that the report leave out the specific examples of abuses perpetrated by for-profit institutions, which he called “hearsay.” He also said he took issue with the recommendation that all institutions must be state approved to be TAP-eligible, a tactic the Education Department is now using for Pell Grant eligibility. APSCU is currently suing to stop this Education Department requirement.
Representatives from some specific for-profit institutions were much more accepting of the GAO report.
Jim Sweizer, vice president of military programs at American Military University, said he appreciates the oversight suggested by the GAO report.
“We do not engage in any of those [questionable] practices here at [the American Public University System],” Sweizer said. “It would be hypocritical of me to be against them my whole military education career and then come here and suddenly be for them.… We feel we’re in full compliance. The extra scrutiny doesn’t bother us at all. We welcome it. We’ll do whatever it takes.”
Government Seeks New Quality Monitor
The GAO report also noted that the four-year, $3.7 million contract that the Pentagon had with the American Council on Education to monitor course quality was not renewed after the end of last year, and thus no review will be conducted until later this year — a lapse that concerns legislators like Carper. The Defense Department is seeking a new contractor and hopes to resume reviews by Oct. 1, 2011.
Jim Selbe, assistant vice president for lifelong learning at ACE, said the criticism levied in the GAO report about the monitoring of course quality had more to do with the charge given to ACE in the Defense Department contract than with ACE’s work itself. He noted that the contract would need to be revised so that more TAP-eligible institutions could be reviewed. Only when a new contract was available, detailing what work would need to be done, would ACE consider whether to seek the contract again, Selbe said.
Gathering of For-Profit Colleges reaching Common Ground?
Unusual Gathering of For-Profit Colleges
With their institutions under increasing scrutiny on many fronts, leaders of for-profit colleges have responded in many ways -- including lots of aggressive political lobbying and some forceful legal actions.
On Thursday, a group of the institutions took a slightly more positive tack: talking among themselves -- and with leaders of sector-crossing national higher education associations -- about how they can respond to the concerns about their integrity and improve their students' learning experiences. At a closed two-day meeting at (of all places) the Princeton Club in New York City, the presidents of 32 regionally accredited career colleges gathered to discuss their common concerns and how they might work together to address them.
The meeting did not take place under the aegis of any existing group or, at least for now, with any specific, stated goal; a spokeswoman for the organizer, Dario A. Cortes, president of New York's Berkeley College, said that the gathering had emerged from a series of discussions he had had with individual presidents about a need for a "national conversation" among the institutions. Whether it eventually leads to more meetings or some kind of common plan of action is still uncertain, said the spokeswoman, Laura Jewell.
But already the meeting differed from many other recent gatherings of for-profit college officials. First, it included officials from two national groups, the American Council on Education and the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, that are dominated by traditional nonprofit institutions but include regionally accredited for-profit colleges among their members. It also included representatives of some of the regional accrediting agencies themselves.
And second, Thursday's meeting contained "no discussion" of how the institutions might lobby against or otherwise fight the heightened regulatory pressure or political scrutiny they are facing, said Terry W. Hartle, who heads the government and public affairs arm of the American Council on Education and attended the meeting.
Yes, there was a lot of talk about allegations of admissions abuses that have been leveled against some for-profit colleges in a U.S. Senate committee's inquiry into the sector, among other issues of particular interest to this set of colleges, Hartle said. But much of the discussion was about concerns that these colleges share with some of their nonprofit peers, such as students who enroll not "ready to do college-level work," Hartle said. "The discussion was candid and frank, and not terribly angry either."
Just how much common ground these colleges can find, and what it might lead them to do -- sponsor research on learning practices, for instance -- remains to be seen. While all of them are accredited by one of the seven regional accreditors (as opposed to the national agencies that accredit the vast majority of for-profit colleges), there is enormous variation among them, from massive publicly traded companies like the University of Phoenix and DeVry University, to 9,000-student institutions like Berkeley, to specialty institutions with under 1,500 students, like the College of Westchester and Harrington College of Design.
With their institutions under increasing scrutiny on many fronts, leaders of for-profit colleges have responded in many ways -- including lots of aggressive political lobbying and some forceful legal actions.
On Thursday, a group of the institutions took a slightly more positive tack: talking among themselves -- and with leaders of sector-crossing national higher education associations -- about how they can respond to the concerns about their integrity and improve their students' learning experiences. At a closed two-day meeting at (of all places) the Princeton Club in New York City, the presidents of 32 regionally accredited career colleges gathered to discuss their common concerns and how they might work together to address them.
The meeting did not take place under the aegis of any existing group or, at least for now, with any specific, stated goal; a spokeswoman for the organizer, Dario A. Cortes, president of New York's Berkeley College, said that the gathering had emerged from a series of discussions he had had with individual presidents about a need for a "national conversation" among the institutions. Whether it eventually leads to more meetings or some kind of common plan of action is still uncertain, said the spokeswoman, Laura Jewell.
But already the meeting differed from many other recent gatherings of for-profit college officials. First, it included officials from two national groups, the American Council on Education and the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, that are dominated by traditional nonprofit institutions but include regionally accredited for-profit colleges among their members. It also included representatives of some of the regional accrediting agencies themselves.
And second, Thursday's meeting contained "no discussion" of how the institutions might lobby against or otherwise fight the heightened regulatory pressure or political scrutiny they are facing, said Terry W. Hartle, who heads the government and public affairs arm of the American Council on Education and attended the meeting.
Yes, there was a lot of talk about allegations of admissions abuses that have been leveled against some for-profit colleges in a U.S. Senate committee's inquiry into the sector, among other issues of particular interest to this set of colleges, Hartle said. But much of the discussion was about concerns that these colleges share with some of their nonprofit peers, such as students who enroll not "ready to do college-level work," Hartle said. "The discussion was candid and frank, and not terribly angry either."
Just how much common ground these colleges can find, and what it might lead them to do -- sponsor research on learning practices, for instance -- remains to be seen. While all of them are accredited by one of the seven regional accreditors (as opposed to the national agencies that accredit the vast majority of for-profit colleges), there is enormous variation among them, from massive publicly traded companies like the University of Phoenix and DeVry University, to 9,000-student institutions like Berkeley, to specialty institutions with under 1,500 students, like the College of Westchester and Harrington College of Design.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Will the For-Profit Education Bubble Burst in 2011?
Will the For-Profit Education Bubble Burst in 2011?
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2010/12/will-the-for-profit-education-bubble-burst-in-2011.html
First there was the high-tech bubble, then the housing bubble. What bubble will burst in 2011?
Many are betting it will be for-profit education - as critics question the value of the expensive degrees and certificates awarded by the likes of Kaplan University and the University of Phoenix.
"Serious questions have emerged about the share of the military educational benefit pool going to for-profit schools with questionable outcomes," said a report issued earlier this month by the Senate's Health, Education Labor and Pensions Committee.
The "gainful employment" Rule Will Deny Two Million Students The Opportunity to Go to College. Committee chair Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) said that by extending benefits similar to the GI Bill to current veterans, "Congress may have unintentionally subjected this new generation of veterans to the worst excesses of the for-profit industry: manipulative and misleading marketing campaigns, educational programs far more expensive than comparable public or nonprofit programs, and a lack of needed services."
The for-profit colleges make big profits on federally-guaranteed loans but critics say that even students who graduate - a small percentage - aren't likely to snag the kind of high-paying positions they're led to expect.
For-profit schools exploded over the last decade. They appeal to working adults seeking training that will help them advance their careers, veterans and active-duty military hoping to smooth the transition to civilian life and, in many cases, those who did poorly in high school and are unable to gain admittance to more selective universities.
Kaplan's bubble may already have burst. Owned by the Washington Post Company, Kaplan is facing Congressional investigations and numerous lawsuits, including a whistle-blower suit filed by the school's former director of education, David Goodstein.
The lawsuits claim that Kaplan recruiters aggressively signed up students who were unqualified and enrolled students in vocational-training courses for industries that they knew to be over-staffed.
Alarmed by the reports of graduates who leave school with heavy debt only to wind up working low-paying jobs, the U.S. Department of Education has proposed regulations that would cut off federal financing to programs that have high debt-to-income ratios and low repayment rates.
One such student is Hope of Hahira, Ga. She graduated from Kaplan in 2006 with an associates degree in paralegal studies and despite having a straight-A average in school, she was fired after a year because her Kaplan education was inadequate, she said in a complaint to ConsumerAffairs.com.
"I now owe all of this student loan debt and am unable to find a job in my field and am in default of my student loans because I can't support myself," Hope said. "I wish that I had known that this school was not a school where credits are transferable and where the "material" isn't appropriate or conducive to learning how to work in the legal environment."
The Washington Post Company has been quick to defend Kaplan, its most profitable unit. It reported spending $350,000 on lobbying during the third quarter of 2010, more than any other higher-education company.
Post Company chairman Donald Graham, a powerful figure in Washington, has also put his personal influence to work, schmoozing lawmakers and regulators. The Post has editorialized against the regulations, saying they would limit students' choices.
"The aim of the regulations was to punish bad actors, but the effect is to punish institutions that serve poor students," Graham said in a recent interview with The New York Times.
But Department of Education figures show that only 28 percent of Kaplan students were repaying their student loans - well below the 45 percent level generally considered the minimum acceptable rate. At the University of Phoenix, by contrast, 44 percent of students were repaying their loans.
The Florida Attorney General has also launched an investigation of Kaplan. In a statement, the office of Attorney General Bill McCollum said the investigation concerned "alleged misrepresentations regarding financial aid; alleged unfair/deceptive practices regarding recruitment, enrollment, accreditation, placement, graduation rates, etc."
Earlier this year, Sen. Harkin's committee held hearings that included undercover videos showing high-pressure recruiting tactics by Kaplan and other for-profit colleges.
The Post Company's Graham called the videos "sickening" and said the company has done its best to clean up the abuses.
The lobbying muscle of the Post Company and other for-profit education companies may be adequate to squash further Congressional action and head off restrictive new regulations.
But the question for consumers to ponder is whether a degree or certificate from a for-profit school will carry the same weight as a similar degree from a community college or public four-year university. Returning veterans and job-seekers hoping to advance their prospects are often better off going directly to potential employers and talking with them about the requirements and aptitudes they look for in prospective employees, employment counselors say.
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2010/12/will-the-for-profit-education-bubble-burst-in-2011.html
First there was the high-tech bubble, then the housing bubble. What bubble will burst in 2011?
Many are betting it will be for-profit education - as critics question the value of the expensive degrees and certificates awarded by the likes of Kaplan University and the University of Phoenix.
"Serious questions have emerged about the share of the military educational benefit pool going to for-profit schools with questionable outcomes," said a report issued earlier this month by the Senate's Health, Education Labor and Pensions Committee.
The "gainful employment" Rule Will Deny Two Million Students The Opportunity to Go to College. Committee chair Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) said that by extending benefits similar to the GI Bill to current veterans, "Congress may have unintentionally subjected this new generation of veterans to the worst excesses of the for-profit industry: manipulative and misleading marketing campaigns, educational programs far more expensive than comparable public or nonprofit programs, and a lack of needed services."
The for-profit colleges make big profits on federally-guaranteed loans but critics say that even students who graduate - a small percentage - aren't likely to snag the kind of high-paying positions they're led to expect.
For-profit schools exploded over the last decade. They appeal to working adults seeking training that will help them advance their careers, veterans and active-duty military hoping to smooth the transition to civilian life and, in many cases, those who did poorly in high school and are unable to gain admittance to more selective universities.
Kaplan's bubble may already have burst. Owned by the Washington Post Company, Kaplan is facing Congressional investigations and numerous lawsuits, including a whistle-blower suit filed by the school's former director of education, David Goodstein.
The lawsuits claim that Kaplan recruiters aggressively signed up students who were unqualified and enrolled students in vocational-training courses for industries that they knew to be over-staffed.
Alarmed by the reports of graduates who leave school with heavy debt only to wind up working low-paying jobs, the U.S. Department of Education has proposed regulations that would cut off federal financing to programs that have high debt-to-income ratios and low repayment rates.
One such student is Hope of Hahira, Ga. She graduated from Kaplan in 2006 with an associates degree in paralegal studies and despite having a straight-A average in school, she was fired after a year because her Kaplan education was inadequate, she said in a complaint to ConsumerAffairs.com.
"I now owe all of this student loan debt and am unable to find a job in my field and am in default of my student loans because I can't support myself," Hope said. "I wish that I had known that this school was not a school where credits are transferable and where the "material" isn't appropriate or conducive to learning how to work in the legal environment."
The Washington Post Company has been quick to defend Kaplan, its most profitable unit. It reported spending $350,000 on lobbying during the third quarter of 2010, more than any other higher-education company.
Post Company chairman Donald Graham, a powerful figure in Washington, has also put his personal influence to work, schmoozing lawmakers and regulators. The Post has editorialized against the regulations, saying they would limit students' choices.
"The aim of the regulations was to punish bad actors, but the effect is to punish institutions that serve poor students," Graham said in a recent interview with The New York Times.
But Department of Education figures show that only 28 percent of Kaplan students were repaying their student loans - well below the 45 percent level generally considered the minimum acceptable rate. At the University of Phoenix, by contrast, 44 percent of students were repaying their loans.
The Florida Attorney General has also launched an investigation of Kaplan. In a statement, the office of Attorney General Bill McCollum said the investigation concerned "alleged misrepresentations regarding financial aid; alleged unfair/deceptive practices regarding recruitment, enrollment, accreditation, placement, graduation rates, etc."
Earlier this year, Sen. Harkin's committee held hearings that included undercover videos showing high-pressure recruiting tactics by Kaplan and other for-profit colleges.
The Post Company's Graham called the videos "sickening" and said the company has done its best to clean up the abuses.
The lobbying muscle of the Post Company and other for-profit education companies may be adequate to squash further Congressional action and head off restrictive new regulations.
But the question for consumers to ponder is whether a degree or certificate from a for-profit school will carry the same weight as a similar degree from a community college or public four-year university. Returning veterans and job-seekers hoping to advance their prospects are often better off going directly to potential employers and talking with them about the requirements and aptitudes they look for in prospective employees, employment counselors say.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
