Talk Elections

Sponsor: Napoleon

Is my alma matter a for-profit university? If not, I'll support this. ;)

If you're going to attend a private, for profit business to obtain a degree, you should get your financial aid from private, for profit businesses who provide loans to customers of for profit colleges.

I shall, therefore, support this bill.

To clarify:  I am on shaky ground providing financial aid to private universities and colleges that are not-for-profit, but I do understand the value that they provide to society and I do believe it is a good investment.

Private universities, for example, while costing more than a public university education, also tend to adhere more strictly to graduating students in 4 years.  6th and 7th year seniors are a rare thing at these colleges.

The distinction I make is with the profit status.  If for-profit colleges want to attract students, they can use their profits to subsidize the students' educations.

I might be open to allowing subsidized financial aid if a for-profit college can provide proof that it is placing graduates in jobs within their field of study at a similar or higher rate than traditional public and private higher education institutions.

Um... what about people who are getting loans who are currently studying? I think it's a bit unfair  on these people... if you're going to do that, it would probably need to be future students...

Is there a mechanism to direct additional funds to public universities? Because I can see tremendous pressure on public universities from students who don't want to pay the higher interest-rates of private loans.

This bill wouldn't affect students at public universities or normal private universities.

I don't think this goes far enough, but it's a very needed and good first step. I strongly support this bill.

Very much agreed.

Sorry, I don't think I'm asking unreasonable questions here... Also how do we define 'for-profit'?

Because how you define that term will in fact impact other institutions...

I don't think it's really that hard to define "for-profit"...
If they advertise on TV... they're for profit :P

"one day, one night, saturday's alright.. online's just fine, night time any time... get your degree, set yourself free.. National American University!"

yeah...

Whether it's easy to do or not doesn't mean that it shouldn't have a clear definition in the Bill. I don't see why this has to be contentious -

LOL 

 Some of the colleges around here run advertisements on TV. And not of all of them seem like for-profit entities. But I guess I could be wrong.

Is there anything wrong with adding some clarification to this bill?

UNC, Wake, NC State, UVA, etc ALL run TV advertisements during sporting events featuring their teams. I don't know what a for-profit school is, but as long as it doesn't effect schools like that, I support it.

I also would agree there should be some clarification - if advertising makes you for-profit, count out many of the top schools in Indiana for sure. I can't even begin to imagine the hit Indiana University or Purdue would take if this bill was passed in it's current form.

Can public universities be considered "for-profit" though? I can see a lot of big private schools being considered for-profit, but I can't imagine any tax funded school being for-profit. That said, we need some way to clarify schools as for-profit, because I cannot support any bill that essentially bans federal aid to any private university. I know that isn't the aim of this bill. We do need clarification though.

THANK YOU!

I was reading this just after watching the Michigan game I saved and saw a commercial for the Big Ten and Michigan. Funny.  Actually, the President's point goes to a much bigger question.  Take the tv ad definition out of it (no offense but it was unworkable), but schools get money from athletics, tv sponsorship, etc.  Even the military academies (do we have them in Atlasia) make a lot of money that way.  If Army, Navy, and Air Force are for profit, then I would be at a loss to find a nonprofit school.  Of course, there is St. Mary's for the Blind.

Also, I found the response to Polnut's very legitimate question just rude.  I am sure it was not meant that way, but it seemed that way to me (also a little silly).

On second thought, as a Notre Dame fan (yeah I know we lost) I am in favor of cutting of aid to Michigan (and USC, Miami, Purdue, Penn State, BC...to name a few).  So proceed.

I was just about to post that. Schools make huge profits from athletics each and every year. Do we consider that a "for-profit" activity? Obviously, schools want to have a profitable athletic department (Wake got heat for being in the red in 2010).

Wikipedia (don't judge) defines "for-profit" universities as schools run by private, for profit companies or organizations. There is also a list of them. I suppose we can write that into the bill. But the current bill cannot stand. I am surprised no one else has said anything, because if we passed it as it is, we basically end all financial aid for students and that would be a total catastrophe.

For reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For-profit_school

I second Polnut and Duke's concerns. There needs to be some clarification here. This is statute, guys. If a bill consists entirely of a vague single line it could probably use some expanding on.

I'll offer this amendment. I am not sure if it covers all the bases, but I try my best.

^^^^

I support this.

That was all I was asking for, a little bit of reasonable clarification...

How unreasonable of you!

But seriously, I hope we can get this amendment passed pronto.

Sponsor Feedback: Invalid Domain Name

I think the amendment looks good.  I'm glad Duke distinguishes between "profitable" athletic events, etc (the profits therefrom being used mostly for improvement of those programs or for scholarships to students participating in those programs).

There should be a definite, clear difference between profiting off of an athletic event where everyone shows up and buys a ticket... and charging tuition and then encouraging students to use subsidized student loans to pay it, thus giving the private for-profit college higher profits.

We should be subsidizing college educations at institutions that enrich peoples' lives, not peoples' pockets.

Friendly

Sponsor Feedback: Friendly
Status: Senators have 24 hours to object to the passage of the above amendment. 

Amendment 45:1 has passed.

Final vote?

Let's see:

1. No debate in the last 24 hours.  Check
2. A call for a final Vote. Check



So yea, this bill is now at final vote, please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

Aye

Aye

Aye

Aye

Nay

aye

aye

This bill has enough votes to pass, Senators have 24 hours to change their votes.

Final vote on passage of the Student Loan Protection Act:
Aye (6): AHDuke99, bgwah, Fuzzybigfoot, Napoleon, NC Yankee and Snowguy716
Nay (1): Jbrase
Abstain (0):

Didn't Vote (2): BRTD and Officepark


The bill has passed the Senate and is presented to the President for executive action.

()