Barney Tells His Story

[Ellen Stuttle]

22 hours ago, Mark said:

The fact that the taxpayer would be paying for the fraud makes it worse but it would be bad even without government involvement.

As I'm understanding the issue, the core of it is that the students weren't getting what Barney was being paid for.  Barney was taking advantage of the existence of student loans in order to collect money from students, leaving them to repay the loans and without an education to show for it.  It's the ripping off of the students which is the issue.  The defenses putting the emphasis on "government loans" are smokescreens (in some cases inadvertent ones by people who aren't understanding that the students were ripped off).

Ellen

[merjet]

The Objective Standard: "First, to criticize a private college for accepting students’ funds that come from government loans and grants is almost as absurd as criticizing a private supermarket for accepting customers’ funds that come from government welfare programs" (link).

Biddle flippantly implies they are near equivalent. But are they? Let's compare them. 

1. I calculated that during Walmart's latest fiscal year about 2.5% of it's revenues come from food stamps. I don't know of any Walmart that assists its customers in applying for food stamps. Most large grocery stores would have a lower percent than Walmart.
2. I don't know what percent of Barney's for-profit colleges' revenues are attributable to government-backed student loans. But suppose it's 50%. I also assume that, like most colleges, they have a financial aid unit that is very actively involved in helping its students obtain government-backed student loans.

Are #1 and #2 anywhere near equivalent? 

[Brant Gaede]

We are all living in the sea of government money, aka the mixed economy. Some activities are legitimate (Walmart), some not (IRS agent). Got that from Rand.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

16 hours ago, 9thdoctor said:

... it looks like Biddle is covering the rebuttals well enough.  A sample:

First, to criticize a private college for accepting students’ funds that come from government loans and grants is almost as absurd as criticizing a private supermarket for accepting customers’ funds that come from government welfare programs.

The supermarket getting funds from people on welfare is a clever metaphor.

The one that comes to my mind for Barney, however, is "welfare queen."

Michael

[Jon Letendre]

By all means let us quibble endlessly about the ethics of exploiting govt education meddling.

The man rose to the top of an organization now being brought down for horrific abuse and human trafficking.

“The Church of Scientology presents a façade to the outside world to disguise what in reality is nothing more than a cult built on mind control and destruction of the independence and self-control of those drawn into its sphere,” the lawsuit states. “Members are isolated from the outside world, their access to information is heavily monitored and controlled, and they are subject to physical, verbal, psychological, emotional and/or sexual abuse and/or assault.”

Read more here: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article231725253.html#storylink=cpy

[9thdoctor]

22 hours ago, Mark said:

9thdoctor is “Respondent A” in
Response to Barney Revelations

Still not convinced. 

22 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

9th in the kind of thinker who will become more confident there are no mice in the cupboards after you show him the dead ones in the traps you set.

Seems you’re pretty desperate to interact with me.  But I don’t want to interact with you.  Got the hint yet? 

Seriously, you need help.  You actually believe Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been dead for over 5 months? 

https://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/topic/16963-epitome-of-the-collectivist-soul/?do=findComment&comment=288204

Replaced by an imperfect look-alike?  Lay off the guano.

[Mark]

19 hours ago, merjet said:

... I don't know what percent of Barney's for-profit colleges' revenues are attributable to government-backed student loans. But suppose it's 50% ...

There is reason to think it exceeds 90%.

In 2012, maybe a little before, the Education Department said they were going to impose a new requirement on for-profit schools that receive government aid. At least 10% of a schools revenue must come from sources other than government backed loans and Pell Grants.  I gather they didn’t put a date on the implementation, just a vague soon.

In 2012 Barney took control of a non-profit foundation – the Center for Excellence in Higher Education – and transferred all his schools to the foundation, making them, nominally, non-profit schools.  When accused of trying to avoid the upcoming requirement he said his timing was just a coincidence.

The transformation in name only didn’t do him any good.  The Education Department said that because he was in complete control of CEHE they would not recognize the schools as non-profit.  Then in 2017 the Education Department said they were delaying implementation of the requirement indefinitely.

ADDED:  The main point, as Ellen says in her last post, is that Barney/CEHE are ripping off their students.  Where and how or if they borrowed to pay Barney matters only to this extent:  the availability of the very easy to get government loans (1) enables Barney to take in more students than he would otherwise, and/or (2) enables him to charge them more than he would otherwise.  It drives up the demand and/or the price.