Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Celerity
Celerity's Journal
Celerity's Journal
June 11, 2019
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/10/opinion/trump-mexico-tariffs-trade.html
Remember that time when Donald Trump was going to win the Nobel Peace Prize for ending the threat of nuclear war on the Korean Peninsula?
It was almost exactly a year ago. The president was about to meet North Korea’s Kim Jong-un in Singapore. A group of House Republicans nominated the president for a Nobel Peace Prize. The crowd chanted “No-bel!” at a Trump rally.
In the end, the main achievement of the summit, a propaganda victory for North Korea, was mollifying Trump, who’d been threatening nuclear holocaust. Kim Jong-un agreed to work toward denuclearization, but as even casual news consumers know, the North Korean definition of denuclearization includes the lifting of the American nuclear umbrella over Northeast Asia. Actual North Korean concessions were minimal.
Nevertheless, from the right arose a thundering, bullying demand that Trump be given credit. And a few progressives cautioned against making too much of the summit’s inadequacy, arguing, in part, that it was better for Trump to get suckered and claim victory than to lash out. Democratic critics of the summit, wrote The Atlantic’s Peter Beinart, risked becoming “de facto allies of ultra-hawks like John Bolton,” who wants to discredit diplomacy with North Korea.
It was a fair enough point, but also a tacit acknowledgment of the inescapable degradation of living under this president, which often feels like being stuck in a house with an unstable and abusive father. You can either placate him by humoring his delusions, or puncture them and risk unpredictable fallout. The choices are complicity or destruction.
snip
NYT Op-Ed Congratulations on Fixing the Border, Mr. President!
Should we pretend that Donald Trump made a real deal with Mexico?https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/10/opinion/trump-mexico-tariffs-trade.html
Remember that time when Donald Trump was going to win the Nobel Peace Prize for ending the threat of nuclear war on the Korean Peninsula?
It was almost exactly a year ago. The president was about to meet North Korea’s Kim Jong-un in Singapore. A group of House Republicans nominated the president for a Nobel Peace Prize. The crowd chanted “No-bel!” at a Trump rally.
In the end, the main achievement of the summit, a propaganda victory for North Korea, was mollifying Trump, who’d been threatening nuclear holocaust. Kim Jong-un agreed to work toward denuclearization, but as even casual news consumers know, the North Korean definition of denuclearization includes the lifting of the American nuclear umbrella over Northeast Asia. Actual North Korean concessions were minimal.
Nevertheless, from the right arose a thundering, bullying demand that Trump be given credit. And a few progressives cautioned against making too much of the summit’s inadequacy, arguing, in part, that it was better for Trump to get suckered and claim victory than to lash out. Democratic critics of the summit, wrote The Atlantic’s Peter Beinart, risked becoming “de facto allies of ultra-hawks like John Bolton,” who wants to discredit diplomacy with North Korea.
It was a fair enough point, but also a tacit acknowledgment of the inescapable degradation of living under this president, which often feels like being stuck in a house with an unstable and abusive father. You can either placate him by humoring his delusions, or puncture them and risk unpredictable fallout. The choices are complicity or destruction.
snip
June 11, 2019
Nearly three quarters of likely Iowa caucusgoers think at least some 2020 presidential candidates in the crowded Democratic field should drop out, according to a new Des Moines Register poll released this weekend. The survey found only 18 percent of likely caucus voters say they like considering all of the candidates, whereas 47 percent said several of the candidates should quit and 27 percent said most should.
Juliane Welsh of Dubuque said that while she’s following the race closely, she still finds it difficult to keep track of the candidates and that the majority withdrawing from the race would be for the best. “They just have to drop out so we can get more informed and put our attention to the ones that actually have a chance,” she told the Register.
Grant Woodard, a former party political operative who practices law in Des Moines, said long-shot candidates remaining in the race was “selfish” at a certain point. “I think that once you hit around Labor Day, if you don’t have a real field organization developing in Iowa or in any of these other states, if you’re just in it to be on cable television and go to events, you’ve got to pull the plug,” Woodard told the newspaper. “It’s a distraction. It’s a disservice to the party. It’s a disservice to what we’re ultimately about, which is to beat Donald Trump.”
Of the more than 20 candidates in the field, only five poll at more than 2 percent: former Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), South Bend, Ind. Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Kamala Harris. Two candidates, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and Miramar, Fla. Mayor Wayne Messam, were not named by any respondents as their first or second choice.
snip
Iowa Poll: Most likely caucus goers wish several or most candidates would drop out
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/447830-iowa-poll-most-likely-caucus-goers-wish-several-or-most-candidates-wouldNearly three quarters of likely Iowa caucusgoers think at least some 2020 presidential candidates in the crowded Democratic field should drop out, according to a new Des Moines Register poll released this weekend. The survey found only 18 percent of likely caucus voters say they like considering all of the candidates, whereas 47 percent said several of the candidates should quit and 27 percent said most should.
Juliane Welsh of Dubuque said that while she’s following the race closely, she still finds it difficult to keep track of the candidates and that the majority withdrawing from the race would be for the best. “They just have to drop out so we can get more informed and put our attention to the ones that actually have a chance,” she told the Register.
Grant Woodard, a former party political operative who practices law in Des Moines, said long-shot candidates remaining in the race was “selfish” at a certain point. “I think that once you hit around Labor Day, if you don’t have a real field organization developing in Iowa or in any of these other states, if you’re just in it to be on cable television and go to events, you’ve got to pull the plug,” Woodard told the newspaper. “It’s a distraction. It’s a disservice to the party. It’s a disservice to what we’re ultimately about, which is to beat Donald Trump.”
Of the more than 20 candidates in the field, only five poll at more than 2 percent: former Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), South Bend, Ind. Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Kamala Harris. Two candidates, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and Miramar, Fla. Mayor Wayne Messam, were not named by any respondents as their first or second choice.
snip
June 11, 2019
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/06/06/where-citizenship-question-could-cause-census-miss-millions-hispanics-why-thats-big-deal/?utm_term=.328de9848965
The Supreme Court is expected to decide in coming weeks whether next year’s decennial census will include a new and controversial question on citizenship added by the Trump administration. The question is already being asked each year of a small fraction of the nation’s population in the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey.
Hispanics with no citizenship answer on the 2017 American Community Survey
In the latest ACS, in 2017, the citizenship question went unanswered by about 1 in 12 Hispanics, a far higher rate than that of whites. Where these non-responses occurred can tell us where millions of Hispanics would probably be missed if the same question were added to the 2020 Census. Hispanics from Mexico and Central America, areas targeted by the Trump administration’s immigration policies, were most likely to skip the citizenship question, so their neighborhoods would be most affected by the undercount.
The question is simple: “Is this person a citizen of the United States?”
But those words would lead to a 2020 undercount of 6 million Hispanics, or about 12 percent of the Hispanic population, according to a study published this spring by Harvard’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy. “It’s just a really simple experiment where individuals are receiving a census form that looks remarkably similar to what people actually receive in 2020,” said Bryce Dietrich, a Shorenstein research fellow. “And half the time that form includes a question about household members’ citizenship, and in the other half of the time the question is not present.”
The Washington Post worked with Dietrich to estimate where the Hispanic undercount, as a result of the citizenship question, would have the biggest impact, distributing it by state using the citizenship non-response data for Hispanics in the ACS. For example, California accounted for 28 percent of the nation’s unanswered ACS citizenship questions, so it was assigned that share of Shorenstein’s estimate of the overall Hispanic 2020 undercount.
Hispanic undercount and its share of the total state population
snip
It could give Red States a NET PLUS FOUR Electoral College votes (versus an accurate and fair count), not to mention (and related, obviously) give Rethugs a net 4 more seats in the US House and maybe more, due to gerrymandering, PLUS give them gains in State and local assemblies as well. grrrrrrrrrr
Where a citizenship question could cause the census to miss millions of Hispanics & why it's a big
deal.https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/06/06/where-citizenship-question-could-cause-census-miss-millions-hispanics-why-thats-big-deal/?utm_term=.328de9848965
The Supreme Court is expected to decide in coming weeks whether next year’s decennial census will include a new and controversial question on citizenship added by the Trump administration. The question is already being asked each year of a small fraction of the nation’s population in the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey.
Hispanics with no citizenship answer on the 2017 American Community Survey
In the latest ACS, in 2017, the citizenship question went unanswered by about 1 in 12 Hispanics, a far higher rate than that of whites. Where these non-responses occurred can tell us where millions of Hispanics would probably be missed if the same question were added to the 2020 Census. Hispanics from Mexico and Central America, areas targeted by the Trump administration’s immigration policies, were most likely to skip the citizenship question, so their neighborhoods would be most affected by the undercount.
The question is simple: “Is this person a citizen of the United States?”
But those words would lead to a 2020 undercount of 6 million Hispanics, or about 12 percent of the Hispanic population, according to a study published this spring by Harvard’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy. “It’s just a really simple experiment where individuals are receiving a census form that looks remarkably similar to what people actually receive in 2020,” said Bryce Dietrich, a Shorenstein research fellow. “And half the time that form includes a question about household members’ citizenship, and in the other half of the time the question is not present.”
The Washington Post worked with Dietrich to estimate where the Hispanic undercount, as a result of the citizenship question, would have the biggest impact, distributing it by state using the citizenship non-response data for Hispanics in the ACS. For example, California accounted for 28 percent of the nation’s unanswered ACS citizenship questions, so it was assigned that share of Shorenstein’s estimate of the overall Hispanic 2020 undercount.
Hispanic undercount and its share of the total state population
snip
It could give Red States a NET PLUS FOUR Electoral College votes (versus an accurate and fair count), not to mention (and related, obviously) give Rethugs a net 4 more seats in the US House and maybe more, due to gerrymandering, PLUS give them gains in State and local assemblies as well. grrrrrrrrrr
June 10, 2019
President Trump has spent the last half day frantically retweeting his propagandists, who are pushing the absurd deception that Trump’s new deal with Mexico is a massive and historic victory. In reality, the agreement — which averts Trump’s threatened tariffs — consisted mostly of things Mexico already agreed to months ago.
Trump is in a rage over this — he repeatedly fumed at the New York Times for reporting it — and now he’s amplifying the notion that he won enormous concessions from Mexico by claiming that Mexico has secretly agreed to another major provision that will be revealed at some unspecified future time.
This has come packaged with a threat: Trump just tweeted that if Mexico does not soon take formal steps to ratify that secret provision, “Tariffs will be reinstated!”
But this threat gives Democrats a big opening to grab control of this debate — both on the immigration and trade fronts, because this story intertwines the two, and more broadly to better engage with the colossal failures of Trump’s nationalism.
The two main provisions of the deal that Trump reached with Mexico are an expansion of a program in which asylum seekers trying to enter the United States wait in Mexico; and increased deployment of Mexico’s national guard to disrupt smuggling networks and try to stop migrants from Central America from reaching the southern border.
snip
Trump's latest rage-threat gives Democrats a big opening. One just took it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/06/10/trumps-latest-rage-threat-gives-democrats-big-opening-one-just-took-it/?utm_term=.ad6d9060f60dPresident Trump has spent the last half day frantically retweeting his propagandists, who are pushing the absurd deception that Trump’s new deal with Mexico is a massive and historic victory. In reality, the agreement — which averts Trump’s threatened tariffs — consisted mostly of things Mexico already agreed to months ago.
Trump is in a rage over this — he repeatedly fumed at the New York Times for reporting it — and now he’s amplifying the notion that he won enormous concessions from Mexico by claiming that Mexico has secretly agreed to another major provision that will be revealed at some unspecified future time.
This has come packaged with a threat: Trump just tweeted that if Mexico does not soon take formal steps to ratify that secret provision, “Tariffs will be reinstated!”
But this threat gives Democrats a big opening to grab control of this debate — both on the immigration and trade fronts, because this story intertwines the two, and more broadly to better engage with the colossal failures of Trump’s nationalism.
The two main provisions of the deal that Trump reached with Mexico are an expansion of a program in which asylum seekers trying to enter the United States wait in Mexico; and increased deployment of Mexico’s national guard to disrupt smuggling networks and try to stop migrants from Central America from reaching the southern border.
snip
June 10, 2019
When Mette Frederiksen, leader of Denmark’s Social Democrats, triumphantly took to the stage at her party’s election celebration Wednesday night, she rattled off a list of the policy priorities that had propelled them to victory. Sandwiched between the traditional causes of welfare and climate change was one that was jarring from the mouth of a European center-left politician: cracking down on immigration.
The 41-year-old’s comments underlined the unapologetically hardline anti-immigration stance her party adopted on the campaign trial, cannibalizing the policies of the far-right Danish People’s Party to win back voters anxious about immigration. Their reworked vision of European social democratic politics — asserting the need to clamp down on immigration to protect the cherished welfare state — earned the center-left party 48 seats with 25.9 percent of the vote, positioning it to form the next government.
Denmark’s elections are the latest and most extreme example of liberal parties across Europe adopting anti-immigration policies most often championed by far-right groups. This calculation has allowed the left to weather a populist surge across the continent, but analysts warn that the strategy is short-sighted, and only plays into the far-right’s hands by further mainstreaming their anti-immigration agenda.
“It has important ramifications for the future of left-wing parties elsewhere in Europe,” said Alberto-Horst Neidhardt, a policy analyst at the European Policy Center. “Virtually all left-wing parties, to differing degrees, have been positioning themselves further to the right on immigration policies, but Denmark’s Social Democrats have pushed it even further than anyone else.” The Social Democrats’ hard swing to the right on immigration represents a complete about-face for a party that previously held traditional center-left positions on the issue: welcoming to migrants, pro-multiculturalism, solidarity with refugees.
But that all changed in 2015, when two major events — the sudden arrival of more than one million asylum seekers on the continent, and the dramatic rise of the Danish People’s Party, which finished second in that year’s election — provoked a radical shift in direction, said Lars Koch, policy director for human rights NGO ActionAid Denmark.
snip
Sweden is still the outlier, as it is still much more immigrant/refugee friendly than the rest of the Nordics, (and the EU overall), but even they have started to crack down a bit and concentrate on integration. Denmark is the most extreme in Scandinavia (but nothing like Hungary and Poland, etc), then Finland, then Norway, but even Norway is much closer to Denmark, policy-wise, than it is to Sweden)
Denmark's Elections Show How Much Europe's Normalizing Anti-Immigrant Politics (the Center-Left now)
https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/neaq87/denmarks-elections-show-how-much-europe-is-normalizing-anti-immigrant-politicsWhen Mette Frederiksen, leader of Denmark’s Social Democrats, triumphantly took to the stage at her party’s election celebration Wednesday night, she rattled off a list of the policy priorities that had propelled them to victory. Sandwiched between the traditional causes of welfare and climate change was one that was jarring from the mouth of a European center-left politician: cracking down on immigration.
The 41-year-old’s comments underlined the unapologetically hardline anti-immigration stance her party adopted on the campaign trial, cannibalizing the policies of the far-right Danish People’s Party to win back voters anxious about immigration. Their reworked vision of European social democratic politics — asserting the need to clamp down on immigration to protect the cherished welfare state — earned the center-left party 48 seats with 25.9 percent of the vote, positioning it to form the next government.
Denmark’s elections are the latest and most extreme example of liberal parties across Europe adopting anti-immigration policies most often championed by far-right groups. This calculation has allowed the left to weather a populist surge across the continent, but analysts warn that the strategy is short-sighted, and only plays into the far-right’s hands by further mainstreaming their anti-immigration agenda.
“It has important ramifications for the future of left-wing parties elsewhere in Europe,” said Alberto-Horst Neidhardt, a policy analyst at the European Policy Center. “Virtually all left-wing parties, to differing degrees, have been positioning themselves further to the right on immigration policies, but Denmark’s Social Democrats have pushed it even further than anyone else.” The Social Democrats’ hard swing to the right on immigration represents a complete about-face for a party that previously held traditional center-left positions on the issue: welcoming to migrants, pro-multiculturalism, solidarity with refugees.
But that all changed in 2015, when two major events — the sudden arrival of more than one million asylum seekers on the continent, and the dramatic rise of the Danish People’s Party, which finished second in that year’s election — provoked a radical shift in direction, said Lars Koch, policy director for human rights NGO ActionAid Denmark.
snip
Sweden is still the outlier, as it is still much more immigrant/refugee friendly than the rest of the Nordics, (and the EU overall), but even they have started to crack down a bit and concentrate on integration. Denmark is the most extreme in Scandinavia (but nothing like Hungary and Poland, etc), then Finland, then Norway, but even Norway is much closer to Denmark, policy-wise, than it is to Sweden)
June 7, 2019
POLITICO
?
Verified account
@politico
Follow Follow @politico
More
Steve Bullock is out, Bill de Blasio is in. Here’s who’s making the cut for the first Democratic debates.
Barring a last-minute change, Montana Gov. Steve Bullock will not make the stage.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/06/democratic-debates-2020-election-1356115
A prominent governor running in the Democratic primary is at serious risk of getting shut out of the party’s first presidential debates — while a meditation guru and obscure tech entrepreneur take the stage for the most important event of the race so far.
That’s the state of play less than a week before the deadline to qualify for the debates on June 26-27 under the rules set by the Democratic National Committee.
Presidential hopefuls have until June 12 to cross one of two thresholds to qualify for the primary debates, and 13 of the 20 slots available are set. Montana Gov. Steve Bullock is currently out, one of the foremost candidates in danger of missing the stage. His camp blasted what it called the DNC's eleventh-hour "unmasking" of "arbitrary" polling rules, but the DNC said the Bullock campaign has been aware of the criteria for months.
Bullock’s status isn’t the only question remaining in the final week of qualifying, but the latest update comes after the Democratic National Committee provided POLITICO with additional guidance about its polling criteria — the first time the party committee has publicly addressed questions surrounding the previously announced guidelines.
snip
Steve Bullock's out,Bill de Blasio's in.Here's who's making the cut for the first Democratic debates
https://twitter.com/politico/status/1136792654082166786POLITICO
?
Verified account
@politico
Follow Follow @politico
More
Steve Bullock is out, Bill de Blasio is in. Here’s who’s making the cut for the first Democratic debates.
Barring a last-minute change, Montana Gov. Steve Bullock will not make the stage.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/06/democratic-debates-2020-election-1356115
A prominent governor running in the Democratic primary is at serious risk of getting shut out of the party’s first presidential debates — while a meditation guru and obscure tech entrepreneur take the stage for the most important event of the race so far.
That’s the state of play less than a week before the deadline to qualify for the debates on June 26-27 under the rules set by the Democratic National Committee.
Presidential hopefuls have until June 12 to cross one of two thresholds to qualify for the primary debates, and 13 of the 20 slots available are set. Montana Gov. Steve Bullock is currently out, one of the foremost candidates in danger of missing the stage. His camp blasted what it called the DNC's eleventh-hour "unmasking" of "arbitrary" polling rules, but the DNC said the Bullock campaign has been aware of the criteria for months.
Bullock’s status isn’t the only question remaining in the final week of qualifying, but the latest update comes after the Democratic National Committee provided POLITICO with additional guidance about its polling criteria — the first time the party committee has publicly addressed questions surrounding the previously announced guidelines.
snip
June 6, 2019
Hi! And a debate watch party ask (Pete official email)
Hi Avalon!
I’m Greta — Pete for America’s National Organizing Director.
My job is building the people power that will allow the campaign to talk to the voters we need to win. That means you and I will hopefully get to know each other pretty well over the course of this campaign 
I’ve been here in South Bend for about a month and have been building out our teams across the country. We’re building a new kind of organizing program — and I can’t wait to meet you where you are and get you involved!
Today, though, I’m here to talk specifically about the upcoming DNC Debates.
We’re organizing debate watch parties across the country – will you host one in your community?
Because there are so many candidates, there will be two nights of debates. Half the candidates will take the stage on Wednesday, June 26th, and the other half on Thursday, June 27th.
We don’t know which night Pete will debate yet, but we’re not letting that stop us from planning a big and exciting night of watch parties.
Sign up to host a house party, and we’ll be in touch to coordinate and make sure you have all the resources you need to make your party a success:
https://go.peteforamerica.com/host-a-debate-watch-party/
I’ll be in touch soon with more about our organizing strategy and how (and why!) we’re planning to do things differently. But for now, just know that we need you to keep having conversations about Pete with your friends, your family, your social media followers, and even the woman at your favorite bagel store.
That’s why we’re asking you to host a group of your friends to watch Pete at the debate. Pete’s message is important and his bold vision for the future is why we’re here. But we know that now, more than ever, the most important thing is the messenger – that’s you.
So tell us you’re in, and then pencil in a debate watch party for either Wednesday the 26th, or Thursday the 27th. Let’s build a community invested in our bold vision for the future:
https://go.peteforamerica.com/host-a-debate-watch-party/
Thanks! I can’t wait to meet you!
Greta
Greta Carnes
National Organizing Director
Pete for America
June 6, 2019
Nothing 'middle of the road' about leaving poor women & women of color unable to access abortion
care when they need it. Especially right now. That position is unjust and discriminatory and endangers women and families.
ilyse hogue
Verified account
@ilyseh
President of @NARAL Pro-Choice America. Proud Texan. A rising lady lifts all boats.
https://twitter.com/ilyseh/status/1136253252629086208
For anyone who thinks this is a position of faith, here's Mario Cuomo's 1984 speech at Notre Dame arguing that as a pro-life Catholic individual, he was ethically obligated to govern in a pro-choice manner including getting rid of the discriminatory Hyde. http://archives.nd.edu/research/texts/cuomo.htm
3:25 PM - 5 Jun 2019
https://twitter.com/ilyseh/status/1136262875444588547
https://www.aclu.org/blog/reproductive-freedom/abortion/its-time-go-hyde-amendment
June 5, 2019
lolol at the Orange Bloat 'They were dropping tar-pole-uns (WTF) over the John McCain for painting'
Is there no multi-syllabic word this numpty bawbag doesn't mispronounce????
(from his Piers Morgan Interview)
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-not-even-sure-his-team-requested-the-uss-john-mccain-be-kept-out-of-sight/ar-AACqYLX
June 4, 2019
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/03/upshot/student-debt-big-culprit-graduate-school.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
The signs are hard to miss in downtown San Francisco: two stylized A's inside a red circle, symbolizing the Academy of Art University. The for-profit school occupies more than 40 buildings throughout the city and has made its family owners very rich.
Where does the Academy of Art’s money come from? About $100 million per year arrives as tuition and fees financed by federal student loans. The full scope of the borrowing was revealed May 21, when, for the first time, the Department of Education released information about how much debt students are taking on to earn degrees from various academic programs at American colleges and universities.
The data shows one sector in particular with outsize debt: graduate school. And while the Academy of Art fosters unusually high burdens, many public universities and nonprofit schools have also gotten into the debt-fueled graduate school business.
In releasing the college loan data, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos described it as part of President Trump’s executive order to address the student debt crisis. Access to the loan amounts, she said, will allow students to make informed decisions about choosing colleges. At the same time, the department is preparing to uproot the Obama administration’s approach to the debt crisis, by repealing regulations that cut college programs out of the federal financial aid system if students don’t earn enough money to pay their loans back.
Within the graduate school sector, the fast-growing master’s degree market is replete with debt levels that make little sense. An accredited university can essentially create a master’s degree in anything, set whatever price it likes, start signing up students for federal loans, and market the program as “accredited.”
snip
NYT: Biggest Offender in Outsize Debt: Graduate Schools
The market for master’s degrees behaves in strange and erratic ways, new data reveals.https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/03/upshot/student-debt-big-culprit-graduate-school.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
The signs are hard to miss in downtown San Francisco: two stylized A's inside a red circle, symbolizing the Academy of Art University. The for-profit school occupies more than 40 buildings throughout the city and has made its family owners very rich.
Where does the Academy of Art’s money come from? About $100 million per year arrives as tuition and fees financed by federal student loans. The full scope of the borrowing was revealed May 21, when, for the first time, the Department of Education released information about how much debt students are taking on to earn degrees from various academic programs at American colleges and universities.
The data shows one sector in particular with outsize debt: graduate school. And while the Academy of Art fosters unusually high burdens, many public universities and nonprofit schools have also gotten into the debt-fueled graduate school business.
In releasing the college loan data, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos described it as part of President Trump’s executive order to address the student debt crisis. Access to the loan amounts, she said, will allow students to make informed decisions about choosing colleges. At the same time, the department is preparing to uproot the Obama administration’s approach to the debt crisis, by repealing regulations that cut college programs out of the federal financial aid system if students don’t earn enough money to pay their loans back.
Within the graduate school sector, the fast-growing master’s degree market is replete with debt levels that make little sense. An accredited university can essentially create a master’s degree in anything, set whatever price it likes, start signing up students for federal loans, and market the program as “accredited.”
snip
Profile Information
Gender: FemaleHometown: London
Home country: US/UK/Sweden
Current location: Stockholm, Sweden
Member since: Sun Jul 1, 2018, 07:25 PM
Number of posts: 43,314
