Consumer complaint received 2025-01-09 00:00:00
Product: Student loan — Private student loan
Issue: Struggling to repay your loan — Can't get other flexible options for repaying your loan
Company: MOHELA
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
I attended The XXXX XXXX of XXXX from XXXX. I applied after a short, pressure-fueled sales pitch after inquiring about the " Institution '' via their website. After realizing the low level of quality education experience they offered versus what they were selling to me, I decided to drop out of the school to focus on working full-time. 

Within the past few years, many civil and now federal lawsuits have been filed against The XXXX XXXX of XXXX. The XXXX chain is now closed and my prior student loan company XXXX, which stepped in when the initial loan provider XXXX XXXX has now closed and is operated by Mohela. As per the Federal decision about The Art Institutes at large : " XXXX XXXX XXXX Borrower Defense Executive Summary The U.S. Department of Education ( ED ) has determined that all borrowers who enrolled at any XXXX XXXX campus on or after XXXX XXXX, XXXX, through XXXX XXXX, XXXX, are eligible for an automatic discharge of their related federal student loans. This group discharge will provide relief to borrowers harmed by The XXXX XXXX actions, including borrowers who have not yet applied for borrower defense. Borrowers do not need to take any action to receive their discharge. This group discharge is based on EDs finding that The XXXX XXXX and its parent company, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), made pervasive and widespread substantial misrepresentations that borrowers relied on to their detriment. ED relied heavily on evidence provided by the attorneys general offices of Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and Iowa, which conducted multi-year investigations into, and brought lawsuits against, XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX. As discussed in more detail below, EDs independent review of this evidence resulted in EDs finding that, between at least XXXX and XXXX, The XXXX XXXX engaged in substantial misrepresentations related to employment rates, salaries, and career services. Employment Rate Misrepresentations : o The XXXX XXXX advertised the percentage of its graduates who obtained employment related to their fields of study within six months of graduation. These advertised rates were often above 80 %. The employment rates were advertised to prospective students on The XXXX XXXX websites and through centrally created and distributed brochures. Recruiters distributed these brochures to prospective students during in-person campus tours as part of standardized presentations. o However, The XXXX XXXX own records demonstrate that it inflated the advertised employment rates. For example, it counted graduates as employed infield when The XXXX XXXX did not know the graduates job titles or when the job title was unrelated to the degree program. These schools also excluded some graduates with out-of-field jobs because they would have lowered the in-field employment rate. When recalculated to account for these issues, The XXXX XXXX average in-field employment rate dropped from 82 % to no higher than 57 %. The true average rate was lower than 57 % because The XXXX XXXX also falsified at least some of its internal data to make the graduates appear to be working in-field when they were not. o When The XXXX XXXX advertised these employment ratesand when school representatives made oral promises of employment based on these ratesit led prospective students to believe they were likely to obtain in-field employment by attending and graduating from The XXXX XXXX, when the real data did not support that conclusion. 1 Salary Misrepresentations : The same advertisements promoting The XXXX XXXX employment rates also displayed the purported average salaries that graduates earned in their in-field positions. The advertised salaries were inaccurate because they were based on the same flawed data as The XXXX XXXX employment rates. In addition, testimony from former high-raking school officials supports findings that The XXXX XXXX personnel estimated graduate earnings, annualized the actual or estimated income of graduates working in temporary positions, included high-earning outliers in its averages, and falsified the income it reported for graduates. For example, one XXXX XXXX campus included professional tennis player XXXX XXXX annual income to skew the statistics and overinflate potential program salaries, according to a former employee. Another former employee described witnessing a coworker use XXXX to determine that a graduates salary was {$25000.00}, when the graduate actually reported earning only {$8000.00} a year. When The Art Institutes advertised these inflated salaries as if they were average salariesand when school representatives made oral salary promises based on those averagesit led prospective students to believe that graduating from XXXX XXXX XXXX would lead to paid, in-field employment in a certain salary range, when XXXX XXXX XXXX own data did not support those claims. Misrepresentations about Employment Connections, Ongoing Career Services : The XXXX XXXX represented to prospective students that it had partnerships with employers and offered ongoing career services postgraduation. These representations were made on the schools website, in advertisements distributed to prospective students during tours and admissions interviews, and through oral statements. However, the evidence showed that The XXXX XXXX exaggerated its relationships with employers. In fact, it had a negative reputation in the industry, so companies generally did not want to hire XXXX XXXX graduates. Former employees also described that graduates did not have access to ongoing career services after leaving school. For example, once students graduated, school staff did not return their phone calls. The XXXX XXXX communicated these three substantial misrepresentations to prospective students through its website and print materials, and admissions personnel distributed misleading messages to prospective students before and during the admissions process. Prospective students relied on XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX misrepresentations when deciding to enroll. Borrowers attended XXXX XXXX Institutes because they wanted to obtain jobs in creative fields and make more money. XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX heavily marketed itself as a career-focused school providing students the education they would need to obtain employment in creative fields. XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX knew that information about the schools employment rates, graduate salaries, and career services was important to prospective students. The school habitually rushed prospective students through the enrollment process and related paperwork, and it did not make its underlying data publicly available. Furthermore, XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX targeted individuals for enrollment who would be particularly susceptible to promises of better employment and increased earningssuch as individuals with low socioeconomic status and homeless individuals. 2 The XXXX XXXX misconduct harmed borrowers because it left them with high amounts of debt and without the promised earning capacity or employment necessary to pay for their education. Many XXXX XXXX borrowers also dropped out of their programs and defaulted on their loan payments. Additionally, borrowers who enrolled based on The XXXX XXXX career services promises did not receive the promised benefits, which impacted their ability to obtain employment, even if they did complete their XXXX XXXX program. EDs findings are based on its independent review of materials provided by the attorneys general of Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and Iowa, and EDs Investigations Group. The attorneys general of Pennsylvania and Iowa provided materials obtained as a part of a multi-state investigation into XXXX and The XXXX XXXX, including internal employment data, admissions training manuals, and the schools employment advertisements. The Massachusetts attorney general also provided information it obtained during an investigation and lawsuit into the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Massachusetts XXXX XXXX campusincluding internal employment verification forms, other internal records of graduate employment outcomes, advertisements, and statements from former students and employees. Due to the overall lack of value of an XXXX XXXX education and The XXXX XXXX failure to rebut XXXX presumption of 100 % relief, ED determined that 100 % relief is appropriate for XXXX XXXX borrowers who enrolled within the eligible time period. Due to its pervasive and widespread substantial misrepresentations that borrowers relied on to their detriment, ED concluded that The XXXX XXXX misrepresentations likely would have negatively affected all or nearly all students who enrolled on or after XXXX XXXX, XXXX, through XXXX XXXX, XXXX, and thus a group discharge is appropriate. XXXX sold its remaining XXXX XXXX campuses on XXXX XXXX, XXXX, and all remaining XXXX XXXX campuses closed under separate ownership in XXXX XXXX "

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation