DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**usatramadolusa** · 06-20-2012, 08:44 PM

1) Simply being "for-profit" doesn't make one a small business, anymore than Walmart is a small business.

2) I don't buy the recruiting argument. If a school is already operating honestly, it would be in no way affected by this new standard. Even with the extreme case of a recruiter slipping onto Lejeune and signing up TBI patients... if he had gone through proper channels (as opposed to slipping into the barracks like a horny Catholic priest), and his school had the facilities and programs to suit TBI patients, he would have been fine. For example, my school offers interpreters for foreign students and the deaf, and offers separate learning programs for special-needs students. A school can recruit whomever they like... as long as they can verify they are equipped to render full services to those people. However, if a school recruits a wounded veteran who can't write his own name or remember what he did five minutes ago, they better show they're actually going to be able to do anything with him, and not just take his money.

A more likely scenario would be a school having to rework its academic program to meet the required standards. They COULD raise tuition to pay for that, problem is if they're Yellow Ribbon raising tuition would discourage civilians from enrolling, and ironically not even apply to the veterans themselves, because that extra tuition money would be waived anyways. But honestly, I have little sympathy for such a school, if they're deliberately peddling a shoddy overpriced program.

3) I agree, I have no doubt there's political motivation, but that's just the reality of the situation.

We're kind of getting wrapped around the axle by the small business discussion, I'll claim fault for that. In terms of secondary education you generally won't find too many small business equivalents among the state and national universities, you will find some closer to that mold in the "for profit" variety, Need any further caveats or can we let it go?

The one's who are already compliant will have no issue whatsoever, I'll surrender that in a cold second. The problem with regulations of any variety is they tend to be categorized in terms of level of compliance, 0-100% etc. Many organizations may fall into the range of barely compliant or barely non-compliant (think 89% or 91%) and the differences there may be a factor of thousands or even millions of dollars annually depending on the size of the institution.

The institutions who likely become the least compliant are likely among those whose facilities are geographically located near large military facilities or that rely heavily upon distance learning curricula, that is the type of academic institution most likely to have a large composition of the military demographic in its base student population. Those come in varying sizes and they also vary in their market positioning all across the map.

How they tackle the modified recruiting issue is hugely dependent on the ability of the institution to market to the available demographics in the region, or in the case of distance learning depending the ability of their satellite facilities to do so. That's why government meddling can be dubious towards private institutions, to do so can in effect substantially upset an organization's ability to be competitive in a market because it's effectively telling them who they can sell their wares to and who they cannot. The difference between "predatory business practices" and just "business practices" can be a very gray area when looked at from an external, comprehensive perspective.

Now the core of my concern, the urgency of the "problem" seemingly mandating an "Executive Order" is a huge deal. It's simply not there, I voice my concerns not for why necessarily the proposal is "bad", but why it needs to very thoroughly vetted through the legislative process because there could very easily be unforeseen consequences that make our problems worse rather than better.

We can definitely and authoritatively state this EO will not go far by way of lowering inflated tuition costs in secondary learning institutions, for reasons I've laid out it could very easily move it in the other direction depending how it is executed upon. That's why I think it's crucial to lay out the details, until then we get both the advantages and the disadvantages dropped squarely on our laps because "The President said so".

06-20-2012, 08:44 PM	#24
usatramadolusa Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 438 Senior Member	1) Simply being "for-profit" doesn't make one a small business, anymore than Walmart is a small business. 2) I don't buy the recruiting argument. If a school is already operating honestly, it would be in no way affected by this new standard. Even with the extreme case of a recruiter slipping onto Lejeune and signing up TBI patients... if he had gone through proper channels (as opposed to slipping into the barracks like a horny Catholic priest), and his school had the facilities and programs to suit TBI patients, he would have been fine. For example, my school offers interpreters for foreign students and the deaf, and offers separate learning programs for special-needs students. A school can recruit whomever they like... as long as they can verify they are equipped to render full services to those people. However, if a school recruits a wounded veteran who can't write his own name or remember what he did five minutes ago, they better show they're actually going to be able to do anything with him, and not just take his money. A more likely scenario would be a school having to rework its academic program to meet the required standards. They COULD raise tuition to pay for that, problem is if they're Yellow Ribbon raising tuition would discourage civilians from enrolling, and ironically not even apply to the veterans themselves, because that extra tuition money would be waived anyways. But honestly, I have little sympathy for such a school, if they're deliberately peddling a shoddy overpriced program. 3) I agree, I have no doubt there's political motivation, but that's just the reality of the situation. We're kind of getting wrapped around the axle by the small business discussion, I'll claim fault for that. In terms of secondary education you generally won't find too many small business equivalents among the state and national universities, you will find some closer to that mold in the "for profit" variety, Need any further caveats or can we let it go? The one's who are already compliant will have no issue whatsoever, I'll surrender that in a cold second. The problem with regulations of any variety is they tend to be categorized in terms of level of compliance, 0-100% etc. Many organizations may fall into the range of barely compliant or barely non-compliant (think 89% or 91%) and the differences there may be a factor of thousands or even millions of dollars annually depending on the size of the institution. The institutions who likely become the least compliant are likely among those whose facilities are geographically located near large military facilities or that rely heavily upon distance learning curricula, that is the type of academic institution most likely to have a large composition of the military demographic in its base student population. Those come in varying sizes and they also vary in their market positioning all across the map. How they tackle the modified recruiting issue is hugely dependent on the ability of the institution to market to the available demographics in the region, or in the case of distance learning depending the ability of their satellite facilities to do so. That's why government meddling can be dubious towards private institutions, to do so can in effect substantially upset an organization's ability to be competitive in a market because it's effectively telling them who they can sell their wares to and who they cannot. The difference between "predatory business practices" and just "business practices" can be a very gray area when looked at from an external, comprehensive perspective. Now the core of my concern, the urgency of the "problem" seemingly mandating an "Executive Order" is a huge deal. It's simply not there, I voice my concerns not for why necessarily the proposal is "bad", but why it needs to very thoroughly vetted through the legislative process because there could very easily be unforeseen consequences that make our problems worse rather than better. We can definitely and authoritatively state this EO will not go far by way of lowering inflated tuition costs in secondary learning institutions, for reasons I've laid out it could very easily move it in the other direction depending how it is executed upon. That's why I think it's crucial to lay out the details, until then we get both the advantages and the disadvantages dropped squarely on our laps because "The President said so".
	Quote