IAVA wants to limit vets’ choices
So we’ve been reading the emails between the IAVA and members of Congress from IAVA’s little peckerhead twerp, Tom Tarantino, who is threatening to score their scorecard this year before the elections solely on the passage of S.2116, which is being called the “Military and Veterans Education Protection Act“. The IAVA calls it “Protecting the GI Bill“, but that’s not what it does – it actually limits your choices for the schools you can attend with your GI Bill money. According to Tarantino;
The 90-10 rule was created to allow the free market to regulate for-profit schools by preventing them from being entirely government funded. Its predecessor (the 85-15 rule) helped prevent abuses to the WWII GI Bill and we must take a stand now to protect the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
The 90-10 rule says that 90% of revenue for a for-profit school can come from government funds. Due to a loophole in the law, military and veterans benefits fall in the 10% of revenue that is supposed to come from private sources. This puts a target on every veteran’s back. Every veteran that a for-profit school recruits is worth nine more students using federal financial aid.
Actually, government intrusion has absolutely nothing to do with “the free market”, any small ‘r’ republican can tell you that within the first minute of ECON 101. What I’ve been confused about in regards to IAVA is that seems that they’re sending mixed messages about the post-9/11 GI Bill. When there was a Republican in the White House and they were trying to get their Democrat candidate elected, Paul Rieckhoff and Tom Tarantino were in a big rush to get the bill passed with no discussion in the Congress over the bill. When Republicans expressed concerns about it and wanted to edit the bill, the IAVA attacked them and then in the 2008 elections scored their “scorecard” solely on the passage of that bill, which stacked their approval of candidates towards members of Congress who had spent two years trying to screw the troops, except on this single issue.
As soon as the bill was passed, and their guy won the election, Rieckhoff tried to get Congress to put caps on your education benefit, because more people applied for funds than they thought and funding became untenable – one of the points Republicans made before the bill passed and one of the things Rieckhoff and company didn’t want discussed.
Now Tarantino is threatening to do the same on S.2116. This from an email with which he “carpetbombed” (to use his word) Congress with a threat to score against them if they didn’t support this choice-limiting bill;
Time is running out on the 112th Congress and we must act now to ensure that veterans are able to safely use their GI Bill to receive the quality job training that they have earned.
Stand with us and cosponsor S. 2116. Cosponsorship and votes on S. 2116 will likely be scored on IAVA’s 2012 Congressional Report Card.
But, see the bill was just fine back in 2008, when IAVA wanted everyone to think they had an actual purpose and wielded some influence in Congress, and now they want to duct-tape and chicken wire the bill together with piecemeal amendments instead of doing it right the first time. First they wanted to limit your choices by capping the amount of the benefit, and now they want to tell you where you can go to school. And they’re threatening to use their false press to do it.
Luckily, GovTrack predicts that the bill has only a 36% chance of passing.
Category: Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America
Such is the problem with single-issue PAC’s–they don’t look at the big picture, much like the VFW-PAC did.
Speaking of which, did they ever get “officially” disbanded?
VFW PAC got disbanded. But, there’s been some vandalism: several cars (no more than 3 that I found in NoVA) were vandalized – some shithead put “Veterans for Obama” stickers on them.
This confirms for me that IAVA is just astroturf for the DNC. A major constituency (academia) is threatened by organizations that provide just as much education, and the Credentials, at lower cost. We call this Capitalism, and it is good. Hells Bells, a recent graduate of Strip Mall U can do as fine a job getting the economy going as ALL of Der Prez’s Ivy Leaguers.
I think it’s a flawed approach to a real problem. For profit schools are notorious for some downright predatory recruitment practices, and for being at best vague and at worst dishonest about programs and costs. The completion rates are pathetic, and turn veterans into a cash cow until their benefits run out. The degrees promoted by these schools can be earned at Community Colleges and Junior Colleges. The education is as good if not better, is a fraction of the cost, credits earned can actually transfer, and there are legitimate support services available to the student.
If IAVA really wanted to help veterans with this they’d save time and money by actively educating veterans and offering education counseling services instead of prancing around DC bothering legislators.
Jonn,
Have to disagree with you on this one. My understanding of this is to limit the practices of for-profit online universities from going after GI Bill students. It IS a huge problem — In fact, Sen. Tom Harkin had a chart showing that not one traditional university is among the top 10 recipients of the GI Bill. (http://harkin.senate.gov/help/video_floor.cfm)
This isn’t limiting choices of veterans. This is about protecting them from the “diploma mills” of online colleges that give them a worthless degree at the end of 4 years. With the GI Bill, there isn’t a reset button. You need to choose a good school the first time.
StrikeFO #4 Do you really think that veterans aren’t able to make their own choices? Do you really think it’s necessary to legislate those choices? I will admit that there’s a problem, but I think it’s more incumbent on the individuals to educate themselves, and it’s also an opportunity for you and your organization to reach out to veterans while they’re making their choices. In fact, I almost gave this to you to write, but I revel in firing shots across IAVA’s bow.
StrikeFO, I finally started giving a detailed brief about for-profit schools, debt levels, levels of accreditation, and degree value once I realized I’d individually advised almost half my guys on the matter.
Many had no idea about the differences because of the perceived approval by the military because the school in question qualified for GI Bill money. Much of the financial information on VA GI Bill website has been out of date, not working, or unlisted due to updates in the law. Besides Wikipedia the rest of the results are all private websites that show the information while heavily pushing for profits, and offering ‘college matching’ that offers dozens of for profit schools before you ever find a not for profit university.
It’s just another version of the extra life insurance scams and payday loan sharks that prey on veterans who don’t know any better.
I don’t think veterans cannot make their own choices, but I also think that these companies know very well how to deceive us. They put up official looking websites that tout “GI Bill Friendly Schools”, they put Facebook ads all over the place that say “Homeland Security Degrees for Marines”…
You and I, Jonn… may be smart enough to not click it.. right now. When you are in the military straight out of high school, and get out after 4 or 8 years… you aren’t exactly the “educated consumer” when it comes to college choices. I’m speaking from personal experience here, of course.
Sounds like this is better addressed as outprocessing training….
The old adage, “if it’s too good to be true, it probably is”, applies. And, that can be addressed in outprocessing.
StrikeFO:
Harvard is a diploma mill. Pay your money, get a diploma. With the amount of money being paid, no one fails out of Harvard. If you’re making a 2.0, a small donation to the Harvard fund gets you a better grade.
The Ivy League, almost all law schools, and all of the public (State-run) universities and colleges operate on this principle. A student actually has to work harder to fail, than to pass.
Harkin is a hack, and a very bad one. He’s taking his cue, and money, from academia. This kerfuffle doesn’t have shit to do with vets – only with who gets the fucking money.
2.0? For shame. Were you aware that nearly 90 percent of Harvard undergrads get their degrees “with honors” at some level?
I used TA at a community college, then the GI Bill at a for-profit, and then on to a major four public for my MBA. I’m in higher ed finance. Sorry, Harkins and his staff don’t have a clue, and this is a bad idea.
I could write a book on the GI Bill, TA and higher ed, but the Readers Digest version as follows. Consumer protection bills are all the vogue in DC at present, the problem being they are researched and written by folks who don’t know what the hell they are talking about. For-profits can be monitored and shut down using existing Title IV regs, but everyone wants to add more and jump on. This is just another example of big gov’t hurting vets by ‘protecting’ them. If it wasn’t for the for-profit I attended, I likely would not have had an easy of a transition as I did. I’m glad Big Brother didn’t help me by taking away that opportunity.
The Ivy League at least affords you a decent job unless you’re an Interpretive Gaelic Puppetry major. They also offer unparalleled financial aid. Harvard for instance charges no tuition to students whose parent’s income is less than $60,000.
The issue with outprocessing is that all the educational literature (at least when I did SEPS/TAPS in spring 2011) is covered with for profit school ads, and ‘Veteran Friendly College’ lists that are all for profit institutions. And this is the official VA produced material, including a magazine devoted to education benefits that is again full of these schools. So I don’t see how outprocessing at present could objectively present a class on this.
What is IAVA?
No. 2 DaveO:
Good analysis of Colleges
(“Academia” sounds like a disease (Bolemia, e.g.)
No. 4 StrikeFO:
SEN TOM “HARKIN’ BACK” HARKIN (IOWA) — is a goddamned LIAR regarding his “Vietnam War air missions”
(“Stolen Valor,” by B.G. Burkett, p. 182:
“During a 1992 bid for the presidency Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa claimed that he had served as a pilot in Vietnam. His claim had surfaced eight years before, during a 1984 bid for reelection to the Senate, when Harkin boasted that he had served one year in Vietnam flying F-4s and F-8s on COMBAT AIR PATROLS and photo-reconnaissance support missions. Challenged by SEN. BARRY GOLDWATER, Harkin did a quick shuffle, claiming that he had actually flown COMBAT SORTIES OVER CUBA during the sixties. Harkin finally admitted he had NOT seen combat but had served as a ferry pilot stationed in Atsugi, Japan, flying aircraft to be repaired from Atsugi to the Philippines. When pressed by reporters to explain how much time he really spent in VIETNAM, Harkin estimated that over a year, he flew in and out of Vietnam a dozen or more times. BUT HARKIN’S MILITARY RECORD SHOWED NO VIETNAM SERVICE DECORATIONS. He finally conceded he had NOT flown combat air patrols in Vietnam, and began describing himself as a Vietnam ERA vet.*
(Capitalized words by me, for emphasis)
________
*James M. Perry, “Harkin Presidential Bid Marred by Instances in Which Candidate Appears to Stretch Truth,” “The Wall Street Journal,” December 26, 1991, p. 32.
No. 16:
I was negligent —
I forgot to close the initial parenthesis and quotation marks for the book citation and extract .
#13 Ann: and how many students are there at Harvard whose parents earn less than $60K? Yale? Princeton? Brown? How many students owe tens of thousands of dollars?
Ann, thank you for making my point: Harvard provides credentials – a diploma – that permits one to find a job. Society has over-inflated the importance of having a college degree, and undermined the importance of knowledge. Strip Mall University (est. yesterday) also provides such a credential, and an equally valuable education, at a 10th of the cost.
Our military has played into this scam by insisting on career servicemembers have at least an Associates degree if not a PhD.
The only two differences between a soldier with a BS degree from Strip Mall U. and a kid from Harvard are the soldier can get a job on his or her own; and isn’t carrying the debt load. The kid from Harvard must rely on the Good Ole Boy/Gal network.
@ #10 (DaveO)
To say that it’s harder to fail than to pass is not true – in reality, it depends entirely upon what a person is studying. Majoring in Education or some foreign language you already speak, for example, tends to be a very easy path to high grades. A class on molecular biology or electrical engineering, on the other hand, can be quite difficult. The schools certainly don’t want people to fail, though, so they offer an insane amount of free tutoring, counseling, excuses for delayed exams, etc.
You also can’t buy a grade increase, but those with the money typically know which classes to avoid, when you can drop classes without penalties on your transcript, and other ways to ensure they’re never challenged if that’s their cup of tea.
(Disclaimer: I’ve worked for two different Ivy League schools in the past.)
@18 (DaveO)
My knowledge might be out of date these days, but I’d estimate that at least half of the students at Harvard are from middle-class families. I’m in absolute agreement with you that society over-values degrees rather than knowledge, but that doesn’t diminish the reality that the top schools offer some great educational training.
As an aside, I sent this article to Jonn earlier – it’s about a project started by Yale University students and veterans to help transition people from military life to academic life if they choose to go back to school. The universities have their problems, certainly, but they also do plenty of things right, too.
http://news.yale.edu/2012/06/18/warrior-scholar-project-easing-move-combat-college
Ann, agree that it is hard to cover this stuff in transition sessions, but that is the best place. Added regs is not the answer. Case in point, Obama’s recent EO on protections resulted in a email from VA demanding compliance. Schools who agree will be listed on a web site as schools of excellence.
Publics went to work, but the EO is a POS, so they (we) are unsure if it is possible to program two of the provisions. Most won’t sign on. Predatory schools don’t care, they’ll agree to anything until caught. So, unintended consequences, bad schools are listed on the web, cheaper public schools are not. Vets suffer.
LC: not buying it. Met and worked/work with too many credentialed Ivy Leaguers who got richitude, but no education. One poor WH intern was shocked to discover the military requires its officer to have a degree.
Our economy, foreign policy, and law courts are filled with Ivy Leaguers, and have to say – they are MAHHHHvelous darlin’.
Give me a graduate of Strip Mall U. They know ramen.
@ #22 (DaveO)
Understood – I can’t argue with your experiences, and I’ve certainly had some similar ones. I’ve just had others ones that lead me to believe it’s not all bad. I was thinking specifically of soldiers returning to school after serving, who I think in general approach school as more of a chosen opportunity than an entitled experience / fun time. For those sorts of people, I think the ‘top’ schools offer a greater potential for learning than the smaller ones.
But entitled sorts? Rich idiots? Elitist assholes? Yeah, they also get those sorts in good quantity and they get little out of the experience because they put nothing into it and often don’t have to.
LC, I like to think of it as the elitist assholes pay for the the actual intelligent students whose parents couldn’t buy a slot at Deerfield.
This is just my opinion, but I think there’s actually an unspoken trend towards downsizing the legacies. Princeton, and to a lesser extent Harvard, actually do a good job at encouraging public service in their students and graduates. There is also a fair amount of graduates from those schools who join the military.
Columbia and Yale seem to be the real den of wanna be elitists who refuse to live in the real world.
And then there is Duke.
Okay, people, don’t answer my question. See if I care.
(Wouldn’t it be funny if they don’t know the answer?)