Big Government has covered the Obama Administration’s war on career colleges before, particularly the the Wall Street connections: noted short-seller Steve Eisman, who’s testimony in front of the Department of Education and in Congressional committees is shaping the Administration’s policy and potentially earning Eisman millions. Now, it seems Eisman is trying desperately to distance himself from what appears to be a destructive policy for America’s low-income and minority students.
Recently, the Administration and Education Secretary Arne Duncan proposed that career colleges and other for-profit educational institutions, be governed by the so-called “gainful employment rule” – a rule that limits or ends federal grant and student loan money for students at for-profit institutions with low graduation rates or low post-graduation employment. Although for-profit schools face essentially the same problems as not-for-profit institutions, students at for-profit schools tend to be lower-income and minority communities, who rely heavily on government assistance to earn the kind of education and skill level necessary to succeed in today’s harsh economic climate.
The rule has met with overwhelming opposition from a number of organizations and communities, and much of that criticism has been leveled at how the Administration came up with the “gainful employment rule.” Recently, it’s become apparent that Steve Eisman’s testimony motivated the Administration’s actions, even if he’s reticent to admit it.
From Business Week:
On April 16, Eisman met with Education Department officials, including acting deputy assistant education secretary David Bergeron, according to Justin Hamilton, a department spokesman. He sent multiple e-mails to a number of Education Department officials, including Duncan, on May 28, two days after airing his views at the Sohn conference in New York. He warned against the watering down of gainful employment, according to the documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request…
‘He shared a PowerPoint that he intended to use for a speech he was planning to give in May,’ Bergeron, the acting deputy assistant education secretary, said in a telephone interview. “It would have been inappropriate for us not to meet with someone that indicated that he had done serious research on the industry.'”
That Power Point contained some very important suggestions, designed to target the problem Mr. Eisman believed for-profit education was causing. One of those suggestions was a very coincidentally named “gainful employment” rule on slides 33 and 34 of his extensive presentation.
“Eisman informed the Education Department and Harkin’s staff that he had a short position, he said in a telephone conversation. In an e-mailed statement, Eisman said there was nothing wrongwith his contact with the Education Department. ‘I have never had communications with the DOE of any kind with respect to any existing or pending regulations,’ Eisman wrote, declining to disclose his current short position or comment further.”
It seems strange, though, that Eisman’s words were put into action only shortly after the series of meetings. It seems to be the question as to how closely tied the Administration is with Wall Street power-players and how closely such power-players are allowed to come to the legislative process. Huge numbers of American students are relying on Congress to take the correct path in regards to for-profit education, but Congress seems to be relying on friends with alternative agendas.