Will Biden’s Guidance on OPM Partnerships Hold Up Under Trump? Here’s What Students Need to Know.
Credit: J. David Ake / Getty Images News- The Department of Education published a “Dear Colleague” letter warning universities against improper partnerships with online program managers.
- Its letter outlines various types of misrepresentation and suggests online programs may not be equal to their on-campus counterparts.
- The Biden administration increased scrutiny of OPMs in light of complaints of predatory practices and related lawsuits.
- It’s unclear if such scrutiny will persist under the Trump administration.
Offering parting words just ahead of the transition to the Trump administration, the Department of Education (ED) issued a “Dear Colleague” letter clarifying its position on online program managers (OPMs).
The department’s Jan. 14 letter targets all “third-party service providers engaged by an institution of higher education” but specifically addresses OPMs, which have been in ED’s crosshairs for some time.
It warns colleges and universities against “substantial misrepresentation” resulting from partnerships with OPMs. Under the Higher Education Act, universities guilty of infractions could face a fine or lose access to federal funding.
These misrepresentations, the letter outlines, can take three forms.
One is inaccurately identifying someone employed by an OPM as an employee of the university. These non-employees, ED notes, often provide services such as recruitment, advising, and clinical placements, masquerading as university employees by using email addresses associated with the school.
The letter refers to such actions as “deceptive” and claims they can “deprive prospective and enrolled students of the ability to make fully informed decisions about their education.”
Similarly, the second form of misrepresentation, or fraud, involves “presenting a sales representative or recruiter employed by an eligible institution or an external service provider as an academic advisor, such as by referring to them as a ‘counselor.'”
External representatives, ED asserts, are rewarded based on “sales,” or individuals enrolled, and, therefore, aren’t impartial when giving advice about program suitability. They’re more concerned with “securing a financial transaction.”
Finally, perhaps the most damning indictment is the warning that an online program should not be advertised as “the same as” a residential or campus-based program if it is, in fact, substantively different.
Differences include admissions criteria, faculty qualifications, completion rates, the actual degree awarded, job placements, earnings, and licensures granted.
The implication is that the OPM versions of courses and programs are somehow inferior to campus-based equivalents, misleading students who believe they’re paying for the same quality.
Such beliefs constituted the claim of University of Southern California (USC) students who filed a lawsuit against the university in 2023 alleging that its master’s in social work program, mostly outsourced to the OPM 2U, was falsely marketed as a USC program and did not offer the same quality and outcomes as the “real” USC on-campus program.
Students said they were duped. The university and 2U severed their relationship later that year following additional student allegations that both parties misrepresented data provided to U.S. News & World Report to inflate the ranking of the university’s Rossier School of Education.
Third-party education vendors such as OPMs were highly scrutinized by the Biden administration, which aimed to inflict stricter regulatory oversight on university partnerships.
Critics have called OPMs “predatory” owing to high-pressure enrollment (sales) tactics and revenue-sharing arrangements requiring universities to pay OPMs anywhere from 20-94% of tuition revenue for their services, which can inflate tuition costs.
In its recently released “Online Students’ Bill of Rights,” The Institute for College Access & Success says students should have the right to know about an institution’s OPM agreements and should be “protected from the institution’s decision of doing business with an OPM.”
With the transition to the Trump administration, time will tell if ED maintains its level of scrutiny with OPMs. President Donald Trump hasn’t articulated policy preferences in this regard, nor has the presumptive new education secretary, Linda McMahon.
Meanwhile, the OPM landscape continues to change. Universities are opting for fee-for-service partnerships and jettisoning long-term contracts based on revenue-sharing, and many have developed in-house capability and no longer require external partnerships.
Perhaps market forces alone will force changes absent government oversight.