SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
El Reg reports
For-profit college chain ITT Technical Institute is facing further sanctions as the US government and the state of California have ordered the school to stop accepting new students.
Citing ongoing financial problems with the school, the US Department of Education (DOE) has barred the school from taking any new students who rely on federal aid money, out of concerns that the school will go under before those funds can be repaid.
"To protect prospective students and taxpayers, we're no longer allowing ITT to enroll new students with federal aid", the DOE said.
"In addition, in case the school's actions cause it to close, we're increasing the amount of cash reserves it must send us and we're ending its installment payment plan for the amount previously required."
This, after the DOE said it has spent the past two years working with ITT to get its financial matters in order and address concerns from creditors that the school may not be able to stay afloat and pay back its debts.
[...] Students who are already enrolled at ITT with financial aid will be allowed to continue courses and will have the option to transfer to another school that accepts ITT course credits.
The DOE added that those who have already graduated from ITT will continue to have their certifications recognized as valid credentials.
[...] The state of California, meanwhile, is taking things a step further by ordering the school [PDF] to stop accepting any new enrollments at its 15 California locations as of September 1.
The decree, issued by the Department of Consumer Affairs, Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education, cites the financial issues and says "there is a substantial failure by the Institution to meet institutional minimum operating standards related to financial resources and accreditation standards".
We have previously discussed other for-profits in hot water.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Thursday September 01 2016, @07:00PM
You are right, the better term for someone who makes money from money is financier, but such a person is ALSO a capitalist, as capitalist is a more inclusive term than financier.
Right, but that doesn't have bearing on the definition of the term "capitalism." Capitalism doesn't just mean the activity that happens with capitalists/financiers. It is used by many people to mean an economic system that provides certain freedoms (or absolute freedom). There's nothing in the definition of capitalism (at least the one most people use, including the one many economists use) that means capitalism only pertains to activity undertaken by financiers, which is what the gp post was asserting.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 01 2016, @08:30PM
You appear to be conflating the term businessman|entrepreneur with "Capitalist".
As an example, the 6 worker-owners[1] who founded Mondragon in 1956 were entrepreneurs.
Their model, however, does not rely on borrowing from / debt to / dependence on a Capitalist.
Their profit comes from their labor and their operation runs strictly from that profit (and the worker-owners decide democratically how that profit will be disbursed).
This is very unlike top-down Capitalist operations which have a money-man layer of individuals who PRODUCE *nothing* but who skim off the cream.
Your premise is flawed because your vision is too narrow.
You are still using the term incorrectly.
[1] Mondragon now has over 100,000 worker-owners.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Thursday September 01 2016, @08:49PM
You appear to be conflating the term businessman|entrepreneur with "Capitalist".
I think the problem is you are conflating the term "capitalism" with the concept of capitalists. Yes they are etymologically related, but no that is not how people use the word.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings