Wednesday, September 29, 2010

counterfeiters and honolulu

Who knew that an Ontario kid named Wesley pretty much single-handedly torpedoed the Canadian $100 bill?

On Sunday I'm off to Honolulu to meet a hard-money maniac who took his ideas about this (image below) to the extreme, founded a private currency, ticked off the US Treasury and is now facing federal charges. Should be educational, to say the least.

Thursday, September 16, 2010

confirming suspicions

You were right to be suspicious of the University of Phoenix and its ilk.

When I wrote about diploma mills for Wired last winter, many people encouraged me to scrutinize for-profit colleges and universities. But because of the scope of my story about physics professor George Gollin and his battle against obviously fraudulent operations, in which "students" merely pay for their "degrees," I had to steer clear of the issue of for-profit operations.

Now the Government Accountability Office has started looking closely at these institutions. I've pasted below the summary of the report, released last month. It isn't exactly glowing. "One fictitious prospective student received more than 180 phone calls in a month." Say what?

For-Profit Colleges: Undercover Testing Finds Colleges Encouraged Fraud and Engaged in Deceptive and Questionable Marketing Practices GAO-10-948T August 4, 2010


Enrollment in for-profit colleges has grown from about 365,000 students to almost 1.8 million in the last several years. These colleges offer degrees and certifications in programs ranging from business administration to cosmetology. In 2009, students at for-profit colleges received more than $4 billion in Pell Grants and more than $20 billion in federal loans provided by the Department of Education (Education). GAO was asked to 1) conduct undercover testing to determine if for-profit colleges' representatives engaged in fraudulent, deceptive, or otherwise questionable marketing practices, and 2) compare the tuitions of the for-profit colleges tested with those of other colleges in the same geographic region. To conduct this investigation, GAO investigators posing as prospective students applied for admissions at 15 for-profit colleges in 6 states and Washington, D.C.. The colleges were selected based on several factors, including those that the Department of Education reported received 89 percent or more of their revenue from federal student aid. GAO also entered information on four fictitious prospective students into education search Web sites to determine what type of follow-up contact resulted from an inquiry. GAO compared tuition for the 15 for-profit colleges tested with tuition for the same programs at other colleges located in the same geographic areas. Results of the undercover tests and tuition comparisons cannot be projected to all for-profit colleges.

Undercover tests at 15 for-profit colleges found that 4 colleges encouraged fraudulent practices and that all 15 made deceptive or otherwise questionable statements to GAO's undercover applicants. Four undercover applicants were encouraged by college personnel to falsify their financial aid forms to qualify for federal aid--for example, one admissions representative told an applicant to fraudulently remove $250,000 in savings. Other college representatives exaggerated undercover applicants' potential salary after graduation and failed to provide clear information about the college's program duration, costs, or graduation rate despite federal regulations requiring them to do so. For example, staff commonly told GAO's applicants they would attend classes for 12 months a year, but stated the annual cost of attendance for 9 months of classes, misleading applicants about the total cost of tuition. Admissions staff used other deceptive practices, such as pressuring applicants to sign a contract for enrollment before allowing them to speak to a financial advisor about program cost and financing options. However, in some instances, undercover applicants were provided accurate and helpful information by college personnel, such as not to borrow more money than necessary. In addition, GAO's four fictitious prospective students received numerous, repetitive calls from for-profit colleges attempting to recruit the students when they registered with Web sites designed to link for-profit colleges with prospective students. Once registered, GAO's prospective students began receiving calls within 5 minutes. One fictitious prospective student received more than 180 phone calls in a month. Calls were received at all hours of the day, as late as 11 p.m. To see video clips of undercover applications and to hear voicemail messages from for-profit college recruiters, see Programs at the for-profit colleges GAO tested cost substantially more for associate's degrees and certificates than comparable degrees and certificates at public colleges nearby. A student interested in a massage therapy certificate costing $14,000 at a for-profit college was told that the program was a good value. However the same certificate from a local community college cost $520. Costs at private nonprofit colleges were more comparable when similar degrees were offered.

Sunday, September 5, 2010

this can't be as good as it gets

What I like about the ATM inside of the pathetic wooden box on a street near my house is that it showcases the absurdity of the cash system and infrastructure we are so accustomed to that most of us don't bother thinking critically about it. Cash is like manhole covers or toenail clippers: tools that don't inspire much re-imagining because they pretty much are what they are.

But money is a technology that has undergone upgrades before, and the people I've been talking to for this book say that it's overdue for another one. Just look at this machine and picture the backend logistics required to stock, secure and maintain it. Does that inspire much confidence in the neighborhood, let alone the country, currency and economy? True, it's not Somaliland Shillings we're talking about, but surely this can't be the pinnacle of efficiency.