Sorry, but the proposed gainful employment rules make some sense. The only schools who are going to lose their funding are those who take in a higher rate than average of student loan dollars, have very high student loan default rates, and very high loan to job salary figures.
Bottom line: taxpayers shouldn’t be subsidizing loans at schools where students are borrowing out the nose only to find that they cannot get a job and pay back the loans. One can argue that taxpayers shouldn’t be subsidizing any student loans, but if we are going to cut them, we should start cutting where they are least likely to be paid back.
Note: these regulations appy to ALL schools, not just for-profit schools. The for-profits are making the most noise about it because they know it will hit them the hardest, as their students default at an incredibly high rate.
Here is a chart that compares default rates at public, private and for-profit schools.
http://www2.ed.gov/offices/OSFAP/defaultmanagement/instrates.html
I agree, but why stop with for-profit colleges? The vast majority of art majors, theater majors, music majors, history majors, political science majors etc., at not-for-profit colleges and universities will never get a job in their field of study that pays enough money to pay back their student loans, psrticulalry if they went to a private school.
That’s because most of the for profit schools, like this one and the Art Institutes charge obsurd tuitions and rarely have their grads working for any sort of money.. They are largely scams.