The CFPB bares its teeth

The CFPB bares its teeth

In a move applauded by consumer advocates, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau filed suit against ITT Technical Institute.  The Huffington Post reports that this marks the first suit brought by the new consumer protection agency against a for-profit school.

The complaint alleges that ITT violated the Consumer Financial Protection Act and the Truth in Lending Act by enticing students through deceptive marketing and strong-arm recruiting tactics. ITT allegedly misrepresented its graduation and placement rates, and misled consumers about the school’s accreditation.

The complaint also alleges that ITT coerced students into taking out private loans for ITT’s own private gain. How? Well, tuition at ITT is much higher than students can afford, even after maxing out federal financial aid. To close the tuition gap, ITT offered students temporary credit from ITT. That credit came due within nine months–something many of the students were not told during a rushed financial aid discussion. When many of those students were unable to pay the hefty tuition price tag within the required nine months, ITT allegedly forced those students into private loans, due within 10 years, with a 16% interest rate. Defaults at ITT on those private loans topped 70%.

This isn’t ITT’s first legal rodeo.   Former students sued ITT for misrepresentation in 1995.  In 2005, ITT settled a lawsuit with the state of California for inflating grades in order to get more state aid. And ITT’s problems don’t end there; it revealed in an recent SEC filing that a long list of state Attorneys General have issued subpoenas or “civil investigative demands” under state consumer protection statutes.

Student Debt at the Intersection of Race, Class and Gender?

The vast majority of reports on student loan borrower and defaulter characteristics tend to focus on one trait– socioeconomic status, race, gender– at a time. While some authors flat-out state that they don’t intend to consider how characteristics relate to one another, for instance, socioeconomic status and race in calculating risk of student loan debt, the majority seem to simply fail to consider exactly how multiple factors might affect a student’s access to resources.

Much of the literature on student loan debt and default rates disaggregates data by single characteristics.  Nicholas Hillman’s College on Credit and the Urban Institute’s Forever In Your Debt take this approach.  Other reports and articles–like Mark Kantrowitz’s Calculating the Contribution of Demographic Differences to Default Rates, the AAUW’s Graduating to a Pay Gap, and Gross, et al.’s  What Matters in Student Loan Default?–mention intersections, but only in passing, and without sustained analysis.

Teasing out single factors is useful, but only up to a point.  If feminist theory has taught us anything over the past decades, it is that we cannot consider race, class, gender or other characteristics in isolation.  To do so is to fail to understand that people do not inhabit one identity at a time, and that the experience of multiple discrimination is the norm, not the exception.  For example, if having a child is is a “risk factor” for drop out and default, why do we not have better analysis of which students are the most likely to be the sole support for dependents?  How can we know the best way to ensure that these students benefit from higher education if we do not know who they are?