Sting operation by Senator Collins fools U.S. Dept of Education

I've just been told there was recently a network news story about Senator Collins of Maine, who worked with the Government Accounting Office to create a fictitious British school, which then was officially approved by the U.S. Department of Education, and by two student loan agencies.

I'd love to know more about this intriguing development, but so far haven't found any further information.

 

Not bad for a Republican! I wonder if Eddie Haskell and Arnold Ziffel were consulted on this.

Links:
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20030120_1157.html
http://www.austin360.com/aas/news/ap/ap_story.html/National/AP.V6770.AP-Fictitious-Scho.html


Cheers,

 

Yes, but if the Democrats get word of this they may want to introduce a bill to abolish the Dept. of Education!

 

Oh, Man!

I was hoping to get my student loan and "Ph.D. Candidate" title before anyone found out.

I'm only joking, Rich!

 

That went completely over my head. Guess it's not surprising, since I'm a Republican. I don't have a clue what you're talking about.

 

I saw the report on NBC.

Click here for the story on Y’Hica Institute for the Visual Arts

 

It was former-Democrat and Republican Presidential candidate Ronald Reagan who, in 1980, promised to eliminate the Department of Education. Instead of reducing government, he expanded it instead. The DoE lives, along with that huge pork barrel that Reagan elevated to Cabinet status, the Department of Veterans Affairs. And now we have another Republican expanding the Cabinet yet again. Maybe this time the people will actually be served.

 

I think that the bottom line in this is that legally mandated procedures were performed in a totally perfunctory way.

Documentation was apparently requested on this school's accreditation-equivalence, but the applicant school was permitted to forward that material itself. There was no attempt to contact the British government or the validating university directly in order to verify the accuracy of what was sent.

It also seems to me that "validation" arrangements might be rather difficult for outsiders to evaluate.

I guess in one sense we don't need to worry as long as the degree ultimately comes from someplace with the proper approvals. But in another sense, if students and their financial aid providers are going to be pouring their resources into "validated" institutions that are poorly understood, a lot of weight is going to be put on the validating school to police things. (That's what "validate" means, after all.)

In that case, I'd think that the validating university would *have* to be contacted, as a bare minimum.

Bottom line: I think that this might illustrate that the US Deparment of Education treats institutional eligibility for participation in American student aid programs as a clerical rather than as an investigative function. Apparently the only interest here was in filling a file with all of the required forms, not in evaluating whether the information was credible.

This has obvious implications for those questionable schools (like Berne) that use their program eligibility as if it were a US government verification of their academic quality.

 

Gratuitous political comment, Rich!

 

Tom: Not bad for a Republican! I wonder if Eddie Haskell and Arnold Ziffel wereconsulted on this.

Bill: That went completely over my head. Guess it's not surprising, since I'm a Republican. I don't have a clue what you're talking about.

John: The only other significant government-inspired sting operation, many years ago, resulted in trapping the International Accrediting Commission with a fake school whose officers included the sitcom star and the pig of those names. Details at
http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/dm3.html

By the way, I love Bill's line. A mantra for our times:

Since I'm a Republican...I don't have a clue what you're talking about

 

Perhaps in this manner? To Serve Man

 

Isn't that why we have government? To serve the public..........

 

We gain nothing for ourselves by gratuitously trying to anger others.

 

The senator had nothing to fear. Anyone else filing fraudulent documents could be subject to years as a guest of the state.

Just because one individual files a false tax return and gets away with it doesn't mean the tax system is rotten. The tax system is rotten for other reasons.

 

The documents were filed by the General Accounting Office, a body established by law to help ensure that public funds are spent for the purposes intended.

http://www.gao.gov

 

Why do you say "ourselves" when you clearly believe that this rule only applies to liberals?


Cheers,

 

Actually they will want to put together a commission to oversee the DoE. Of course, we will pay for it.

 

My post read: "We gain nothing for ourselves by gratuitiously trying to anger others".

Pretty clearly, that applies to everyone.

Many religions address this stuff, from the Golden Rule to the Buddhist precepts. It's kinda fundamental, I would think.

You are a student of religious ethics, I believe. What do you think?

The reason I'm addressing you and John is because you were the one that initially laid the divisive political bait, and like a fool I took it. Then John flamed me for doing so. I'm trying to respond to both of you in as positive a way as I can.

I'm claiming no superiority here. I've said many ill-considered things myself. I do it all the time. I cheerfully admit that. I just hope that my friends can gently remind me of my own ideals when that happens.

 

Bill, you picked the wrong time to get politically correct. John didn't flame you; it was a joke, just like the jokes (and more serious jabs) you and other conservatives make about liberals on a much more regular basis. See Darren Cross' post--right above yours--for a nice example of that. It wasn't offensive (or, at least, it wasn't any more offensive than what John said).

Now, I'm not knocking Darren or anyone else who makes little jabs about liberals--you'll remember that a few months ago I actually backed up your right (and other conservatives' right) to make exactly that sort of comment. But you can't expect conservatives to be a special protected class, that can joke and criticize but not take jokes or criticism. If you want this to be a cautious, monastic environment dedicated to warmth, contemplation, and positive reinforcement, practice that and encourage other conservatives to practice that. If you want the freedom to kid around a little bit, then I'm sorry (or not) to say that we get that freedom, too.

As far as speech precepts go: Really, if John's comment angered you, you're much touchier about your conservatism than I am about my liberalism. The implicit social contract here, which you created by joking about liberals, is that political humor is okay. If political humor is not okay (which I would take as a sign that the off-topic forum has gotten way too stuffy and self-important), it's wrong for everybody--not just liberals.

Auspiciously, I just got my copy of UU World a few minutes ago and opened to a page where Indian actress Shabana Azmi is quoted as saying "Tolerant people should stop acting like cannon fodder." I couldn't agree more.

So that's the bottom line, Bill. I may not agree with what you say, but I'll spend, oh, five minutes of my time defending your right to say it. And I'm sure that on a good day, you'd do the same for me.


Cheers,

 

Sigh. No, Russ. It was made in response to one. Again, I didn't raise the issue, but I should be free to respond to someone else who initiates it.