Sent from my iPad
A new analysis of attendees’ earnings is in, and it doesn’t look good.
Across the country, public universities are struggling with abysmal graduation rates. Here’s one campus — San Jose State University — that’s trying to do something about it.
In January 2015, Stanford University swimmer Brock Turner was arrested for raping an unconscious woman outside of a fraternity house. Turner, who was the subject of a very sympathetic “once-promising” Washington Post write up, was caught mid-rape by two men who happened to be riding their bikes nearby.
According to testimony in Turner’s March trial, one of the bicyclists yelled, “What are you doing?” at Turner, who proceeded to run away. The bicyclists managed to wrestle Turner to the ground. The former Stanford swimmer, now 20, was convicted of multiple felonies including assault with attempt to rape.
On Thursday, prosecutors asked sentencing judge Aaron Perksy to sentence Turner to six years in a state prison, though the maximum for his crimes is 14 years. But the judge instead decided to side with the probation officer and sentenced Turner to a mere six months in county jail. The Guardian reports that Persky cited Turner’s age and lack of previous criminal history as the reason for his decision. “A prison sentence would have a severe impact on him…I think he will not be a danger to others,” Perksy said.
Perksy’s sentencing factors have shades of that “once-promising” narrative, singularly focused on the well-being of rapist rather than the victim; it’s concern—the emphasis on the “severe impact” punishment could potentially have Turner—over the real, tangible crimes Turner committed. Perhaps the sentence shouldn’t be surprising, after all, only three out of every 100 rapists will spend a day in prison. Those numbers dwindle significantly for other sex-related felonies, like the ones Turner was convicted of.
Yet this sentencing seems particularly callous, particularly given the statement delivered at Turner’s hearing by the 23-year-old victim. In the courtroom, the victim looked directly at Turner and asked him, “I was awake, right?”, refuting Turner’s insistence throughout the trial that she was conscious throughout the encounter and verbally consented.
She also, Palo Alto Online reports, directly refuted large portions of Turner’s statement in which he blamed “campus drinking culture” and “the sexual promiscuity that goes along with that,” for raping a woman. She took particular issue with Turner’s false repentance (“I want to show people that one night of drinking can ruin a life,” Turner wrote in his statement). The victim said in court:
“Ruin a life, one life, yours, you forgot about mine. Let me rephrase for you, I want to show people that one night of drinking can ruin two lives. You and me. You are the cause, I am the effect. You have dragged me through this hell with you, dipped me back into that night again and again. You knocked down both our towers, I collapsed at the same time you did. Your damage was concrete; stripped of titles, degrees, enrollment. My damage was internal, unseen, I carry it with me. You took away my worth, my privacy, my energy, my time, my safety, my intimacy, my confidence, my own voice, until today.”
In her statement, too, the woman seized on the story that surrounded Turner—one that made him a victim of some inevitable circumstances, rather than a felon. A familiar narrative about rape and assault in which the effect of his crimes are diminished so that an upstanding young man could be mourned, so that he could be the victim:
“In newspapers, my name was “unconscious intoxicated woman”, ten syllables, and nothing more than that. For a while, I believed that that was all I was. I had to force myself to relearn my real name, my identity. To relearn that this is not all that I am. That I am not just a drunk victim at a frat party found behind a dumpster, while you are the All-American swimmer at a top university, innocent until proven guilty, with so much at stake. I am a human being who has been irreversibly hurt, who waited a year to figure out if I was worth something.”
She also spoke directly about the probation officer’s recommendation, saying that she didn’t want Turner “to rot away in prison,” but rather for him to “understand and admit to his wrongdoing.” It, however, became clear to her after reading Turner’s statement (where he reiterated that he was drunk, she was conscious, the encounter was consensual, and drinking and hookup culture were the real culprits), that he was unable to “exhibit…remorse.”
“I fully respected his right to a trial, but even after twelve jurors unanimously convicted him guilty of three felonies, all he has admitted to doing is ingesting alcohol. Someone who cannot take full accountability for his actions does not deserve a mitigating sentence. It is deeply offensive that he would try and dilute rape with a suggestion of promiscuity. By definition rape is the absence of promiscuity, rape is the absence of consent, and it perturbs me deeply that he can’t even see that distinction.”
After hearing and reading her statement, the judge still sentenced Turner to six months, though, as Palo Alto Online notes, it will more than likely be reduced to three months “with credit for good behavior.”
The county prosecutor said, “The punishment does not fit the crime.” It hardly ever does, but at least Turner’s future is still promising.
Read her full statement here.
Screenshot via ABC 7
The for-profit college industry appears to be facing its moment of reckoning. The closing of Corinthian Colleges in April of last year, once a big player in the industry, left thousands of students in debt and without degrees. In the months since, the Department of Education has forgiven more than $27 million in debt for nearly 3,500 students—many of them former Corinthian students—on the grounds that they were deceived. The Department of Education has also set up an initiative to take action against for-profit colleges engaged in deceptive marketing and recruitment practices.
According to statistics from the National Center for Education Statistics, for-profit-college enrollment surged between 2000 and 2010. The initial boom has been attributed to the growing number of students—particularly non-traditional students seeking college credentials—as well as the availability of federal student aid and the low cost, on the business side, of providing degrees through a website.
The bust that followed—between 2010 and 2014, enrollment decreased by 26 percent—can fairly be chalked up to the hard-to-ignore failings of these institutions: There are countless stories of debt, default, and the empty promises of a better financial future. And worse, for-profit schools are failing the students who can least afford it—students who attend for-profit colleges are disproportionately older, female, and black, with 51 percent of students coming from low-income families.
The for-profit college boom is one that Vauhini Vara at The New Yorker calls a “sorry legacy,” born from the misguided belief that everyone should go to college. What that belief didn’t account for are the people who either obtain degrees that aren’t worth much in the labor market or those who drop out. For those who don’t complete their degrees at for-profit colleges—and over 60 percent of the students who attend for-profit colleges don’t—the financial consequences are dire.
Good numbers about the eventual earnings of for-profit college attendees have been hard to come by, as self-reported surveys of employment and earnings are often not comprehensive. A new National Bureau of Economic Research paper has finally put some solid numbers on these outcomes, and the authors believe that it is “the most comprehensive picture of for-profit student outcomes in the literature.”
The researchers, Stephanie Riegg Cellini, an associate professor of public policy and economics at George Washington University, and Nicholas Turner, a financial economist at the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Tax Analysis, looked at administrative data from the U.S. Department of Education and the IRS for 1.4 million students who left for-profit colleges between 2006 and 2008 to assess their labor market outcomes.
The study found that, on average, students pursuing bachelor’s and associate’s degrees at for-profit colleges saw their earnings drop, compared to before they started the program. The overwhelming number of students who don’t complete their degrees account for most of this pattern. Six years after attending these programs, for-profit college attendees were not only earning less, but were often saddled with debt and often without new credentials. Cellini and Turner theorize that dropping out might have been a negative signal to employers about a person’s productivity, essentially leading employers to assume that this wasn’t a person who “got things done,” which in turn led to lower pay. The outcomes were far more positive for students who completed their degrees, for whom the researchers found a slight increase in earnings—about $3,500 to $4,000 more per year.
Since there are so many dropouts at for-profit colleges, the negative earnings effect was enough to wipe out the slightly positive gains for those who did complete their degrees for the group, bringing the average net earnings of enrollees to a negative number—roughly $600 less per year. According to government data, only 32 percent of students attending for-profit colleges graduate in six years, and Cellini and Turner’s data set yielded a similar number. That’s half the rate of public or private institutions.
There are two small pieces of good news: First, for-profit students out-earn students who attended public community colleges in one field: cosmetology. Secondly, those who obtained their master’s degrees from for-profit colleges fared much better than those earning a bachelor’s or associate’s degree, seeing an earnings gain of about $6,000. Even master’s program dropouts saw a slight increase in earnings, but the researchers suggested that this result might be due to the fact that master’s program enrollees might be more like traditional college students, so their earnings potential before the program was less evident.
There’s also one big caveat to the study: The researchers were looking at students who left for-profit college from 2006 to 2008, at the start of the recession. They acknowledge that this means that their findings can be partially explained by weak labor market conditions, with for-profit students faring worse during the economic downturn. Nevertheless, this study has managed to provide some answers to some lingering questions regarding the outcomes of for-profit students. If anything, these numbers serve as a sign—perhaps overdue—that buyers should beware.
Shared via my feedly reader
Sent from my iPad