Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Consumer Protection Higher Ed topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Researchers, advocates and impacted borrowers urge stronger state oversight of for‑profit colleges
Summary
Researchers and borrower‑advocacy groups told a New Jersey Senate committee that for‑profit colleges on average produce lower earnings and higher borrowing/default rates, while borrowers recounted decades of debt and nontransferable credits; proprietary colleges countered that their students are different and urged uniform metrics.
Researchers, advocates and people who said they were harmed by proprietary colleges urged a New Jersey Senate committee to adopt stronger accountability and redress measures for the for‑profit higher‑education sector during a hearing that also included testimony from proprietary institutions.
Dr. Stephanie Ciolini, a George Washington University economist, summarized research comparing for‑profit certificate students with similar public‑sector peers: on average, the research cited in testimony found for‑profit attendees earn less and borrow more, sometimes leaving students with lifetime net losses after debt and interest. A Century Foundation policy director and Project on Predatory Student Lending representatives also described patterns of heavy advertising, high borrowing and elevated default risk in the for‑profit sector.
Impact on individuals: Several witnesses described personal harm. Vanessa Harrison said an Art Institute program left her credits nontransferable and she faced collection harassment until federal borrower‑defense relief this year. Britney Bell recounted attending Sanford Brown Institute in 2009, receiving nontransferable credits and long‑lasting credit consequences; both asked lawmakers for stronger student protections and a recovery fund.
Institutional response: Representatives of DeVry, Berkeley and Eastwick Colleges described the nontraditional demographics they serve — working adults, single parents, veterans — and cautioned that some federal and IPEDS metrics (for example, first‑time, full‑time graduation rates) do not reflect outcomes for their students. DeVry provided cohort data for TAG recipients and emphasized persistence measures; Berkeley and Eastwick described debt‑free institutional programs and argued for uniform metrics applied across all sectors.
What counselors and advocates asked for: Testimony in favor of tighter rules included proposals for minimum instructional spending relative to tuition, stronger transparency on employment outcomes and a state‑level recovery fund for students harmed by failing proprietary programs. Advocates also urged outreach to ensure eligible borrowers can use federal borrower‑defense processes.
Next steps: Several bills that respond to these concerns were released from the committee for further work; the chair signaled that S3668 will be refined with performance metrics in the budget process before final legislative action.
