More federal funds for profiteers in higher ed?

This isn't about Rove or Roberts, who have already been hacked to death. However, it did strike me as quite important. For-profit private colleges want a single definition for institutions of higher education that would allow them funds currently only available to non-profits. And because of their lobbying clout, they look likely to get it:

Creating a single definition has been one of the highest priorities of for-profit institutions, which have increasing clout on Capitol Hill because of their growing enrollments (and because their political action committee contributes to lawmakers in ways that nonprofit institutions generally do not). "As a matter of equity and to create a modern Higher Education Act and higher education system, we ought to be recognized as equal participants through sharing a single definition," said Mark Pelesh, a senior vice president at Corinthian Colleges, Inc., a publicly traded higher education provider.

Non-profits are vehemently opposed:

But the traditional higher education establishment and faculty unions have opposed the for-profits' inclusion in the single definition, which they say would give the commercial institutions access to funds that are already in short supply. They have also opposed other provisions in the committee's legislation that they say would weaken protections against potential financial aid fraud and abuse at for-profit colleges.

And in another terrific example of government by lobbyist, it appears as though the for-profits essentially got what they wanted (at least in committee):

The overall result left the single definition provision largely intact, with only the restriction on funds from Titles III and V.

The worst part is that the reason this provision has so much force might just be Democratic stupidity.

[A compromise proposed by Rep. Castle (R-Del)] would prevent for-profit institutions from competing for research grants from the Agriculture Department or the National Institutes of Health unless the laws that govern those grant agencies were specifically amended to allow them to.

Lobbyists for nonprofit colleges were heartened as five of the panel's Republicans (who always vote first because they are the majority party) cast ballots for Castle's amendment. But it came time for the Democrats to vote, a majority of them opposed it, and it failed, 21 to 11.

The Democrats may have voted against this proposal because they advocated Betty McCollum's (D-MN) amendment that would have restored the old distinction between non-profit and for-profit colleges. However, this was little consolation to the non-profit groups:

Lobbyists for nonprofit colleges were furious at the Democrats for not supporting Castle's amendment more uniformly; some were believed to have opposed it because they preferred McCollum's amendment, and others because they did not want to support a compromise crafted by a member of the opposition. Baime of the community college association said they'd made a huge mistake. "To not take three-quarters of a loaf because you prefer the whole loaf that you may not get" is idiotic, he said after the vote.

Why is this a big deal? For one, allegations of fraud at some for-profits. One example is Brooks College, in Long Beach, Calif:

To recruit students, the show said, the college grossly misrepresented graduation and job placement rates, and graduates' starting salaries.

One admissions representative told "60 Minutes" that people in her position would tell prospective students that they would, "have a 95 percent chance that you are gonna have a job paying $35,000 to $40,000 a year by the time they are done," when the actual starting salary was under $11 an hour, according to the Western Association of Schools and Colleges.

The problem is not anecdotal, however, it's a systemic conflict of interest. In fact, there is a current congressional investigation into the private accreditation agency, which appears to have much too close a relationship with the Career College Association (an association of for-profit colleges).

The other part of the problem involves research funds. Should the federal government really be granting research funds to institutions which are more interested in turning a profit than generating important research? Our universities are the most important bastion of scientific and technological development, which is critical to the health of our economy and national security. Furthermore, these funds are limited. The Star Tribune has more:

But research grants from federal agencies such as the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Department of Agriculture are another matter. They should be reserved for scholars who have committed themselves to peer-reviewed research, not the pursuit of profit, and should produce results that advance a public research agenda -- whether it's medicine or engineering or food safety -- not some private shareholder priority.

My thoughts exactly.