Cracking down on fraudulent recruiting materials put out by for-profit colleges—what could go wrong? A proposed rule from the Department of Education will expand “borrower defenses” and lengthen the list of who’s eligible for debt-repayment under the Higher Education Act of 1965. But most of the new rules, laid out in a 530-page proposal on June 13 and due for comment from lawmakers by August 1, are vague enough that they could potentially stand to cripple any postsecondary school that hasn’t been totally honest in its admissions advertising. Which raises the question: When has any advertisement been totally honest, ever? (My alma mater promises a degree will “lead to success.” I suppose that depends on what your definition of “success” is.)
Senator Elizabeth Warren & Co. seek to mandate debt-repayment to grads and dropouts from scammy schools, like the since-defunct Corinthian Colleges chain (victims have had hundreds of millions in debt discharged), and they’ve had significant success. The logic seems to be, why stop now? Really, since victims of these institutions rack up much of the crisis-level student debt we’ve heard so much about, relieving their burden is the least your tax dollars could do. But their Robin Hood plans strike reasonable fear into the hearts of non-profit colleges and universities, particularly lower-than-top-tier law schools and grad programs that don’t do enough to boost degree-earners’ employment prospects. Proposed new rules would have been a boon for the plaintiff stuck in paralegal purgatory who lost her case against Thomas Jefferson law school in March.
Gearing up for costly legal battles will hurt non-profit postsecondary schools already strapped for cash, now forced to lawyer up. Historically black colleges, many of them dwindling due to the integration of formerly white bastions, are particularly concerned, according to a recent analysis in Inside Higher Ed. Graduates of run-of-the-mill good college Bucknell University, which came under fire for misreporting students’ average SAT scores to U.S. News and World Report, might also have a case under the new rules. As could grads from any school—Claremont McKenna, George Washington, Tulane Business School—accused of misreporting admissions data to boost its ranking. Whether their practices were intentionally misleading wouldn’t matter under broadened rules for borrower protection.
Many of us entered college with misconceptions we’d outgrown by the time we graduated. The proposed guidance, lawyers warn, is dangerously vague—vague enough that we could sue our alma maters for our lost innocence. Cha-ching!
