For-profit universities are a pox on the world — these are institutions that take advantage of the ambitious poor, people with aspirations who are trying to get an education, and who believe the lies of the promoters. And these things really are run by capitalists who consider quality last and getting paying bodies in to the often virtual door first.
Laureate Universities are part of the exploitive system, although, to be fair, everyone says “it is not considered among the worst offenders in the for-profit college industry”. Isn’t that reassuring? They also invest a smaller proportion of their revenues on marketing and advertising than Harvard, and their president gets paid less than the head football coach at Notre Dame, facts that are apparently supposed to make us feel better about Laureate but actually leave me disgusted with the priorities of most universities.
Now I learn that Bill Clinton was the honorary chancellor of Laureate Universities. “Honorary” meaning he was not expected to do any real work, but was just endorsing the place and allowing them to slap his face on all their advertising, but he was apparently expecting to get paid. And he did.
Clinton was paid $18 million over 5 years for a few token appearances in promotional visits and brochures.
Eighteen fucking million dollars. $18,000,000. $3.6 million per year. For an honorary position. He got paid as much as 240 minimum wage workers, and didn’t do as much work for it as one malingerer. He did use his influence with the Secretary of State to get Laureate invited to a higher ed policy dinner, though, and seeing the face of the former President of the United States on the advertising probably fooled a lot of rubes into thinking that Laureate was legit, so in a sense he did earn his payola.
But it’s yet another sign of venality and corruption at the highest levels of government, and tells me that, in spite of the mild praise padding every article about them, Laureate is just another well-heeled con job.
I know. Trump University was a worse scandal. That was a cheesy, cheaply gilded “educational” scam befitting a low-rent no-class thug like Donald Trump. Laureate University a tasteful, solid-gold, up-scale scam, which makes it…better?
So once again, another election year, and there’s absolutely no question who I have to vote for in November — there is no question that Donald Trump is a ghastly fascist/racist demagogue and goon, and that we can’t allow the Republican party to hold any power at all. But jebus, why do both candidates have to be so sleazy and unappealing?
Spit on the wachamaycall it, the voting paper (Swedish name “valsedel”, I dont know what that paper vote thingy is called in Merican) before putting it in the box.
There are other uses you can put it to before voting for Hilary, but they would be rather unhygienic.
birgirjohansson@1,
People have to handle the things. People who are not responsible for the sleaziness of the candidates.
@birgerjohansson
The word is “ballot.”
Yeah, I’ve worked the polls before. Please don’t spit on the ballots I (or someone like me) would have to collect and bundle up and seal.
When did Bill Clinton enter the race? Or are we going back to Billary again?
Now, had Hillary taken the money and ran, I’d completely agree with you, but she didn’t. Let’s blame her for what’s hers and blame Bill for what’s his.
@wzrd1: If you spouse is doing something unethical, you know about it, and you financially gain from it, I’m pretty sure you are at least partially morally responsible for the wrongdoing.
Bill Clinton is not running for president this election year.
From the article you’ve quoted, emphases mine:
The invitation was requested before Bill was associated with Laureate.
From today’s Washington Post:
We’re still in It Would Irresponsible Not to Speculate mode, I see, with general lashings of “smoke,” “clouds” and “shadows,” and “people asking questions.”
@7, the for profit model is bad. Hillary Clinton helped promote the for profit model, at least in part due to a personal connection between a founder and her husband. Bill Clinton then got a huge payout. That’s a really common situation (people who used to be in government receiving money for private companies to benefit from their connections) and is obviously less corrupt than a scam. It’s not even Bob McDonnel levels of corrupt, but it still should be criticized.
I confess to being confused. You say that both candidates are sleazy, and yet you haven’t mentioned Hillary Clinton once in this post. Indeed, the very first paragraph of your very first link says she’s “singled out that industry for criticism”. I’m having trouble telling what any of them are even criticising her for, besides being connected to her husband.
Unless being married to someone who’s sleazy automatically transfers sleaziness and accountability in full? I wasn’t aware it worked like that, but I suppose I might have missed a memo somewhere.
I expect that Hillary and Bill have some joint finances.
re 10:
of course you did, doncha know?. A woman is responsible for EVERYthing her husband is. Especially when she is running (running in high heels BTW) for a MANS JOB, (POTUS). She better be sure her husband and children are squeeky clean without even a hint of anything.
While a man (supposedly Drumph is) can be corrupt as shit and sleeazy as scum and yet still be never held accountable.
That’s just the Merican Way.
and those feminazis tell us its misoginny. Who are they? wimmin knows nuthin.
my spellin going all representative of the thing I characterize those attitudes comin from.
ack
srsly.. gee I hope my keyboard didn’t get too distracting, trying to express how disgusted I am with the attitude that Hill=Bill and that everything he did that we disagree with is more scandalous than anything Drumph has done, and because he did it, Hill is worse than Drumph, or making Drumph acceptable. phhht. *kachoo*.
BRB
aleph @ 10
Hillary Clinton is the Secretary of State referred to in that sentence.
I think we should support Laureate Universities.
After all, they’re clearly better than the self-evident scam that was Trump University. Eliminating for-profit colleges isn’t a “viable” option, and it’s not like ordinary universities are perfect so no matter how sleazy Laureate Universities may be, we must recognize that they’re the lesser evil and grant them our unconditional support. While grimacing and griping about it, of course— we may owe them absolute loyalty but we don’t need to be happy about it.
Sounds good – but what about the end-of-year bonus payments, success fees, interest free loans, forgiven loans, housing allowances, travel expenses, etc? You won’t find them in the wages and salaries column of the company books.
re 14:
I smell false analogy
The Washington Post article did include this:
I just include it in Clinton’s general post-Presidency activity to turn his image into money, as with the speeches. A tad sleazy, but I wouldn’t tell him to turn down what is effectively endorsement money anymore than I’d do so for professional athletes.
I don’t get what the State Dept. has to do with this. Was there a cabinet meeting one time when Clinton won a game of paper-rock-scissors against the Secretary of Education? Was Arne Duncan busy washing his hair that day? What happened?
Um. *raises hand* To answer the question at the end, it’s the two-party thing, I think. If one party has a nominee who is horrific, the other one can be horrific -1 and win. It’s a race to the bottom–or the top, depending on your criterion.
I expect every election now to be the Democrats running someone rich, middle or worse, chummy enough with groups that have lots of money to bring in lots of money for the Democrats, at this rate probably hawkish, and probably out of touch. Meanwhile the Republicans continue to run someone unelectable.
I hope I’m wrong, and I hope I’m wrong about Hillary Clinton.
I hope I’m wrong about Clinton, but unless I see some evidence that I’m wrong, I won’t be voting for her.
The current forecast from fivethirtyeight. That’s some evidence, although not the kind you wanted. Stein’s chances are roughly 0 — we should play poker some time, if you think that’s okay. You even have to be ready to burn money if you’re betting on Johnson (as if that would be a good thing). But don’t tell me about Stein… that’s just ridiculous.
How would you describe the color of your state on that map? What do you think it will look like on Nov. 8? Do you want Trump’s chances to increase? Do you instead think that actually your vote (and those of the people you’re trying persuade) doesn’t matter, and if so why do you keep making such a stink about it? How many times, in how many threads, do we need to be told how you intend to vote? If you have no point and no plans to come up with one, would you consider prefacing all of your comments with “I don’t have a point”?
Jake Harban, #20
So you won’t be voting. Cool.
The Redhead and I know our votes matter. Which is why the Greens, Rethugs, and Liberturds will not be marked. The Donald as president is unthinkable, and the others are non-viable, as any intelligent person who has read history knows.
#21: Nice to know that since my state is almost in the top ten most-likely-Trump my vote is almost certain to have no bearing on the end result of the presidential race.
I also can’t wait for the next election without an incumbent, which I am now going to predict will be between Tim Kaine and David Duke.
PZ could I suggest you read the “inside Higher Ed” article to which you link.
1) Secretary Clinton sought the invitation before Bill was given his position
2) Back in ’08 Laureate was considered a leading member of the for profit community
3) Bill was paid an obscene amount of money but it was “only” $16.5 million.
Next from other sources:
4) IIRC the bulk of those monies went to the Clinton foundation.
5) The Clinton Foundation is a charity with open books and with independent oversight that does an immense amount of good.
6) Presidents are paid vast quantities of money for appearances. On the evidence Bill charges between $250,000 and $500,000. Reagan back in ’88 asked and received $1 million.
Yes, there is venality and corruption throughout politics and there always has been, indeed you could almost say that such things are inherent, but grossly overstating the case against the Clintons is not the way to sort out the problem.
@Jake Harris
#20
So Clinton is guilty until proven innocent.