Former dean for for-profit, fraud filled college to head DOJ college fraud unit

[BmorePat87]

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/30/julian-schmoke-jr-trump-education-department-college-enforcement-242176


DeVos and Trump already made it clear that the Dept of Edu will no longer accept claims from students in debt seeking loan forgiveness over claims of fraud against colleges. Today Julian Schmoke, a former dean for DeVry, the for profit college that agreed to pay $100m for fraud last year, was chosen to head that unit. While they are no longer taking claims, they said they will look at the claims already submitted when the administration came in.

Since being confirmed, DeVos, who increased her inherited fortune by funding a legislative initiative for failing school choice model in Michigan and then investing in companies that provided services to charter schools, has decreased the department's role in protecting the civil rights of students and providing relief for students in debt while pushing for policies to benefit private education companies like the one she part owned. Pulling someone from the for-profit industry, particular one of the biggest fraud offenders, to decide if students have been defrauded seems like letting the wolf guard the sheep. It should be no surprise that this unit is of little interest given the case against Trump University and the fraud committed against many by Donald Trump.

[BmorePat87]

This is of particular concern for veterans as the expanded GI Bill means more chances for these schools to prey on veterans, especially with non colleges being permitted.

[StLucieBengal]

This is why we don't need a federal department of education. All of this can be handled at the state level.

States can run all of this as they see fit.

[BmorePat87]

(08-31-2017, 12:13 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: This is why we don't need a federal department of education.  All of this can be handled at the state level.  

States can run all of this as they see fit.

Considering the fact that we have federal education laws, federal level protections and rules for students with disabilities, students taking out loans to go to colleges in different states, and schools that are in business in multiple states, there's a lot of reasons why the state alone cannot handle these things. 

[StLucieBengal]

(08-31-2017, 08:55 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Considering the fact that we have federal education laws, federal level protections and rules for students with disabilities, students taking out loans to go to colleges in different states, and schools that are in business in multiple states, there's a lot of reasons why the state alone cannot handle these things. 

We do not need federal level protections for education. It would actually benefit students for it to be state by state because more students would most likely stay home for university given the incentive that could be given.

[Belsnickel]

(08-31-2017, 08:55 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Considering the fact that we have federal education laws, federal level protections and rules for students with disabilities, students taking out loans to go to colleges in different states, and schools that are in business in multiple states, there's a lot of reasons why the state alone cannot handle these things. 

Not to mention that these for-profit behemoths, and some of the more traditional schools, cross state borders. It is interstate commerce, which means it falls under the federal jurisdiction.

[BmorePat87]

(08-31-2017, 09:38 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Not to mention that these for-profit behemoths, and some of the more traditional schools, cross state borders. It is interstate commerce, which means it falls under the federal jurisdiction.

That's what I meant when I said "and schools that are in business in multiple states" but I also see how that could have been read as schools that have business contracts with companies in different states, which is also a reason why it falls under federal jurisdiction. 

[BmorePat87]

(08-31-2017, 09:24 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: We do not need federal level protections for education.   It would actually benefit students for it to be state by state because more students would most likely stay home for university given the incentive that could be given.

We don't need federal level protections for students with disabilities? I for one think every child deserves to be educated. 

[Belsnickel]

(08-31-2017, 10:04 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: That's what I meant when I said "and schools that are in business in multiple states" but I also see how that could have been read as schools that have business contracts with companies in different states, which is also a reason why it falls under federal jurisdiction. 

Nah, that was me totally skimming your post and it not registering in my brain.

I need more coffee.

[GMDino]

(08-31-2017, 10:06 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: We don't need federal level protections for students with disabilities? I for one think every child deserves to be educated. 

Of course not!  Just move to a state that treats your child better! 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-31-2017, 12:13 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: This is why we don't need a federal department of education. All of this can be handled at the state level.

States can run all of this as they see fit.

Yeah, because what we need are 50 different sets of rules instead of one.

I think the single most important reason the Department of Exucation exist is financial aid. Are you going to sit there and troll we don't need federal financial aid, too? The states will do it all, too?

I'll never understand how conservatives argue we need to improve our schools because our global rankings on education have dropped, but we don't need no stinking federal DOE.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

The issue here isn't the tired state's rights trope. The issue here is cronyism and its effect upon protecting students against fraud. Trump and DeVos profit off of defrauding students so they are getting rid of government protections which protect students from people like them.

[StLucieBengal]

(08-31-2017, 10:06 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: We don't need federal level protections for students with disabilities? I for one think every child deserves to be educated. 

No. State level protections would be fine. I am sure people in every state share he same beliefs. Do you actually think that there is a state that wouldn't have disability protections?

[Belsnickel]

(08-31-2017, 11:38 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: No. State level protections would be fine. I am sure people in every state share he same beliefs. Do you actually think that there is a state that wouldn't have disability protections?

Absolutely.

[StLucieBengal]

(08-31-2017, 10:25 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Yeah, because what we need are 50 different sets of rules instead of one.

I think the single most important reason the Department of Exucation exist is financial aid. Are you going to sit there and troll we don't need federal financial aid, too? The states will do it all, too?

I'll never understand how conservatives argue we need to improve our schools because our global rankings on education have dropped, but we don't need no stinking federal DOE.

We don't need federal financial aid. If the states controlled it I would assume most would have a free tuition option. Plus they could back loans to a state school. More flexibility on the state level for all this to suit the needs of the students.

[StLucieBengal]

(08-31-2017, 11:41 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Absolutely.

And you actually said I always take the negative view of others lol.

There is no way this would happen in today's america. Which states do you think would cut disability protections?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-31-2017, 11:44 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: We don't need federal financial aid. If the states controlled it I would assume most would have a free tuition option. Plus they could back loans to a state school. More flexibility on the state level for all this to suit the needs of the students.

Why don't they do any of these brilliant ideas now? And where do you think federal financial aid comes from? And how do you think the states are going to get their hands on federal financial aid if the federal department doesn't exist?

[Belsnickel]

(08-31-2017, 11:46 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: And you actually said I always take the negative view of others lol.

There is no way this would happen in today's america. Which states do you think would cut disability protections?

I think that there are a number of states that would, as a result of efforts to balance budgets, reduce efforts to to protect disabled residents. These efforts cost money, states have to have a balanced budget, and things like this that effect a minority population would go by the wayside in those efforts.

[BmorePat87]

(08-31-2017, 11:38 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: No.  State level protections would be fine.   I am sure people in every state share he same beliefs.    Do you actually think that there is a state that wouldn't have disability protections?

Yea. It a cost and some states certainly only spend that money because it is federally mandated. With no mandate and no medicaid or SSDI funding, they won't bother to do anything special. That or they will have entirely exclusive schools as they did in the past. 

[Belsnickel]

(08-31-2017, 11:44 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: We don't need federal financial aid. If the states controlled it I would assume most would have a free tuition option. Plus they could back loans to a state school. More flexibility on the state level for all this to suit the needs of the students.

No it wouldn't. There is actually a lot of flexibility at the state level for things with higher education, and with that flexibility they have consistently cut the budget.