In a free market world, anyone is game - even the most vulnerable

I am pleased to see that reporters are going after for-profit schools like the U. of Phoenix. It is disgusting that the U.S. has allowed this sort of thing to, for lack of a better term, flourish as a result of Pres. Obama's higher education plans, among other things.

When it comes to the sordid tales of how for-profit schools recruit, there's another telling piece of evidence in this recent article entitled, "The Homeless at College." Even worse, the infamous name of Goldman Sachs appears. As far as I am concerned, when that name comes up, you know something is going to be bad. Moreover, and thanks to Bush's relaxing of regulatory rules on online classes, the reporter writes, " [this particular sector of the] industry is now fully mainstream. Goldman Sachs (GS) owns 38% of the for-profit Education Management Corp. in Pittsburgh, which has 136,000 students in programs ranging from fashion to culinary arts, and former President Bill Clinton took a position as honorary chancellor of Laureate International Universities, owned by Baltimore-based Laureate Education. Investors are flocking to the industry, drawn by the stability of government funding and the profit potential of online classes [my emphasis]. But some of the unsavory practices that spurred Congress to act are springing back to life, with a new wrinkle or two." (It's nice to see President Clinton's name there, too. Oh, and as I recall, he's been defending Goldman. Indeed, it's all the more "shocking" when you think about his future son-in-law who, if memory serves me, works for that despicable outfit).

On another financial front, Sallie Mae recently struck a deal with Goldman Sachs. That's right. Sallie Mae raised $1.5 billion for private loans, all of which is being financed by Goldman. [Whack! Take that regulatory reform.]

All the while, people raise hell about taking "personal responsibility" for pursuing higher education. What about the concept of corporate responsibility? Do these critics ever step back and think about that? From the posts I read and the nasty emails I receive, I'd say they don't.

The focus shouldn't be solely on for-profits and their relationship to the student lending industry. It is my view, that they are easy targets. While I think this form of higher education is enormously problematic, they are not the only ones who are responsible for the student lending crisis. Why aren't we going after the colleges and universities, too? Aren't they culpable for the increased cost of tuition, too?

If the Obama Administration truly values higher education and accessibility to it, they need to take a hard look at the financing behind it. Why is it the individual is burdened with financing higher education? Why do we accept that tuition will just continue to sky-rocket (even in a deflationary economy)? Why can't we come up with some strategies to help those who are being taken advantage of (I'm using that term broadly too)? Do we not see a connection here between the financial sector and the student lending industry? I'd say it's pretty clear how they're intertwined, and if it's a free market, well, . . . we've seen in other sectors what that leads to . . . it ain't good for U.S. citizens, but I guess who gives a damned? We stopped being "citizens" and instead have become consumers of shitty products, and that includes higher education "products." If we can't get our act together when it comes to financing higher education, I see a bleak future, one that will send the U.S. to the lowest of levels in performance on the global stage.