The Wall Street Journal has an interesting report on the much-deserved business woes hitting the for-profit college industry.
Enrollment of new students at Corinthian Colleges dropped 22 percent earlier this year. It fell 26 percent at DeVry and 36 percent at Capella Education.
Washington Post Company cash cow Kaplan, which has helped keep the newspaper afloat, saw its enrollment plummeted 47 percent in the “June quarter”, whatever that is. The Post needs a new sugar daddy, pronto. Its parent’s education arm accounted for 61 percent of both the Post’s Company’s total revenue and operating income last year. News was just 14 percent of revenue and lost money on an operating basis.
No word from the WSJ on numbers for University of Phoenix, whose owner Leon Black just threw a million-dollar birthday party for himself, and which “has been criticized for targeting injured veterans and homeless adults to fill seats.” (UPDATE: Embarrassing correction here. Leon Black runs Apollo Global Management, not Apollo Group, which owns the University of Phoenix. Thanks to commenter Jack Cooke for catching me on that)
— The St. Petersburg Times tells the story of a Bank of America borrower who got the bank to modify her mortgage only to see it take away her house—for paying her note early.
One of Moynihan’s aides, Ana Olivera, told Bullington the foreclosure could not be stopped. She wrote in a two-page letter that the payment due on Jan. 1, 2011, had been made in December.
“In accordance with the Trial Payment Letter dated December 15, 2010, it indicates that if you are not able to make each payment in the month in which it is due, you will not be eligible for a modification under the Home Affordable Modification Program,” the letter said.
Olivera told Bullington she could avoid a foreclosure by selling the home in a short sale or by signing it over to the bank. The letter said the bank values Bullington’s business and strives to provide exceptional customer service.
— Avik Roy points to hospital consolidation as one big factor in soaring healthcare costs. He looks specifically at the merger of two Harvard hospitals in Massachusetts:
With the two most prestigious hospitals in the state locking arms, insurers were hosed. The new hospital monolith, Partners HealthCare, could deny access to the beneficiaries of any insurer who dared not accept whatever they wanted to charge. After all, who would want to be on an insurance plan that didn’t have access to the two most prestigious hospitals in Boston?
In 2008, the Boston Globe ran an important exposé on the “handshake that made healthcare history”: Partners’ secret agreement in 2000 with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, in which Blue Cross would give Partners more money, in exchange for Partners’ promise that they would demand the same rate increases from everyone else. The growth rate of individual insurance premiums in the state doubled.
I get that there are certain areas of health care where there will always be philosophical differences. But, in theory, both liberals and conservatives oppose monopolies. So why can’t we all get together and launch a crusade against exploitative hospital mergers? I mean, how often do I get to agree with Martha Coakley?

CJR might find it instructive to examine the fortunes of the essay here referred to as posted at The Harvard Crimson. The reason that Kaplan should be forced out of education in America is that its reductionist approach is part of the reason that American students cannot read. (ETS is even worse).
Despite its multiple and obvious flaws, this essay continues to be misunderstood by staff at The Boston Globe and The Chronicle of Higher Education. Despite their extensive coverage of the Harvard Marc Hauser case. Fatalism might tell us that nothing can be done: Neither students nor journalists can read a document, and that is not going to change.
http://freedomofscientificinquiry.blogspot.com/2011/08/letter.html
The following is an essay (originally published in The Harvard Crimson, covered by The Boston Globe, The New York Times (forthcoming), and Nature (forthcoming)) drafted by Pierre Pica (pica@msh-paris.fr), Bert Vaux (bv230@cam.ac.uk), and Jeffrey Watumull (watumull@mit.edu). It presents a critical discussion of the nature of scientific inquiry and the responsibility of universities and governments to investigate instances of scientific misconduct. It uses the recent affair of alleged scientific misconduct by Marc Hauser as a case study in how such investigations can endanger the freedom of scientific inquiry. As repeatedly stated in the essay, it is not a defense of Hauser; if its thesis contributes to his defense, so be it, however this would be incidental.Signatories to the essay express their support for the general issues raised concerning scientific inquiry and investigations of misconduct—not for the (sometimes colorful) discussion of the particular facts (all publicly available) of Hauser's work. Additional signatures of support can be submitted by e-mailing any of the authors. © Pierre Pica, Bert Vaux, Jeffrey Watumull. Simple template. Powered by Blogger.
#1 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Tue 23 Aug 2011 at 10:19 PM
Not one of the three writers here bothered carefully to analyse the letter that they were covering. Nor in any case has there been a followup to correct that deficiency:
1.The Chronicle of Higher Education
Noam Chomsky on Marc Hauser’s Resignation
July 22, 2011, 1:17 pm
By Tom Bartlett
2.Letter: Harvard's Hauser Inquiry Undermined Scientific Process
Academics question handling of investigation into top psychologist's alleged misconduct By JULIA L. RYAN, CRIMSON STAFF WRITER
Published: Monday, August 08, 2011
3.HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Colleagues defend Marc Hauser, criticize Harvard and media
Link| Comments (7) 08/08/2011 7:47 PM
By Carolyn Y. Johnson, [Boston] Globe Staff
#2 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Tue 23 Aug 2011 at 11:35 PM
Clayton -- time for you to get your own blog, sted of piggybacking at length on CJR's work.
#3 Posted by Brian O'Connor, CJR on Wed 24 Aug 2011 at 01:09 PM
Brian O'Connor:
I am not aware of your position at CJR. Perhaps you could fill me in.
Thanks. Clayton.
#4 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Wed 24 Aug 2011 at 01:20 PM
Mr Ryan Chittum: Since you seem to take a critical view of these publications and businesses and their choice of words (such as "'June quarter', whatever that is'" or "The Post needs a new sugar daddy, pronto"), you likely have an obligation to at least check the truthfulness of the statements you make. Leon Black is the boss of Apollo Global Management, a private equity firm, which is not related to Apollo Group, the owner of the University of Phoenix.As a result, the linkage that he threw a lavish birthday party for himself while the university targets injured veterans and homeless adults has no meaning, and is irresponsible on your part.
#5 Posted by Jack Cooke, CJR on Thu 25 Aug 2011 at 01:24 PM
You don't expect the mere truth to hinder this latest Commie/Liberal Fairy tale in ChittumLand, do you, Jack?..
#6 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 25 Aug 2011 at 01:31 PM
Padikiller: I'm simply pointing out an inaccuracy. I'm not looking to attack him for the substance of his beliefs. That said, that's a pretty scary and alienating post on your part.
#7 Posted by Jack Cooke, CJR on Thu 25 Aug 2011 at 01:34 PM
There's a history of Ryan's playing fast and loose with the facts to further his anti-corporate activism under the guise of "professional journalism"...
I've busted him before - falsely suggesting that a particular Assistant U.S. Attorney worked for the SEC, after falsely alleging that this person was part of a scheme to "run out the clock" on criminal statutes of limitations in fraud cases...
It pisses me off. And yes, around here the truth is scary and alienating to many...
#8 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 25 Aug 2011 at 01:51 PM
Jack,
Many thanks for catching my embarrassing fact error. I've updated with a correction.
#9 Posted by Ryan Chittum, CJR on Thu 25 Aug 2011 at 02:43 PM
Notice how all the "errors" seem work to the benefit of the anti-capitalist agenda?
Think there just might be a little bias thing going on?
#10 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 25 Aug 2011 at 06:09 PM
"That said, that's a pretty scary and alienating post on your part."
It's sort of his shtick.
#11 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 25 Aug 2011 at 10:12 PM
And Thimbles' schtick is accusing people of racism without basis...
In particular, he has:
1. Publicly and by name (in this very forum) accused a dedicated and hard-working attorney whom he has never met of being a "bigot"..
2. Stated his racist and misguided belief that columnists should held to different standards of conduct in the content of their columns based upon the color of their skin, and
3. Nonsensically claimed that the words "steak" and "Ho Ho's" are racist "code words"... (As if only black people eat steaks or Ho Ho's in his silly world).
When the facts get in the way... Thimbles plays the race card (miserably).
Such racist hypocrisy pervades the commie/liberal left...
#12 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 26 Aug 2011 at 12:44 AM
Anyone who checks out NYT's corrections today will harvest a good crop.
[A compelling reason for a formal Massachusetts college admissions curriculum is that handling of evidence should be internalized well before first year. For example, careful quoting without [...] can only be learned by minute attention to "Macbeth," for example, where students ask if Lady Macbeth was just faking her reaction to Macbeth's "Here lay Duncan, / His silver skin laced with his golden blood." Avoiding the familiar slash and burn of [...]. Which the writers of the Hauser letter could not resist:
Could the Process of Investigating Scientific Misconduct Undermine Scientific Inquiry?
1.[Indeed, "the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth [is] produced by its collision with error" (5).]
John Stuart Mill (1806–1873). On Liberty. 1869 Chapter II: Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion. But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.] In quoting, it is essential not to strip away context, conditional exposition, and qualification.
2.[It is curious that Hauser is accused of misconduct in the sense of fabrication or falsification given that, according to Harvard (4), "the experiments reported [by the Harvard investigating committee] 'were' designed and conducted" (emphasis added); i.e., the experiments were not fabricated.]
I have shown how the first quote (from Mill) was butchered. Why not do the second one on your own? It is fine to have a Yale Grand Strategy course, or to recycle the great books idea in video, but we also need sound practices in handling evidence.]
I enjoy reading Ryan's copy. He has admitted his error and corrected it.
#13 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Fri 26 Aug 2011 at 04:18 PM
Clayton wrote: I enjoy reading Ryan's copy. He has admitted his error and corrected it.
padikiller responds: Yes, Clayton... But has Ryan explained his "error"?
Can he tell us why his "errors" always further the commie/liberal agenda?
How in the Hell did a "professional journalist" confuse the CEO of an equity management firm for the CEO of for-profit school?
HUH?...
What train of thought led to this "error"?
The answer is simple... Ryan is predisposed to find a "Wall Street" bad actor behind every perceived bad act, and he is will to either jump to conclusions or fabricate facts to further his anti-corporate nonsensical agenda.
It's not merely sloppy journalism... It's an agenda-driven malfeasance. PERIOD.
Why should the readers have to endure this fictional bias over and over?
HUH?
#14 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 27 Aug 2011 at 07:04 PM
Dear Padi the "anti-Commie,"
The 1950s called. They want their paranoia back.
- Hardrada
#15 Posted by Hardrada, CJR on Mon 29 Aug 2011 at 09:16 PM
Dear Hardrada....
2008 called. They want some Hope and Change.
And 2007 called. They want 4.6 % unemployment back.
#16 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 29 Aug 2011 at 10:10 PM