good material thanks <a href=" http://www.tec-kronoberg.se/isotretinoin-ipledge.pdf ">accutane order</a> Further, APSCU&#8217;s primary opposition is largely tied to an equitable playing field, and though this is expressed in demographics, demographics is not the sole differentiation. When gainful employment first came out, the administration used an example of the difference in repayment rates between Berkley and a for profit college. What a revelation! Affluent upper class students are more financially stable than poor inner city students!? Well just shut down all the for profits because poor struggling people aren&#8217;t as good as repaying their loans! Only problem is, you would of course find the same level of disparity between Berkley and ANY COMMUNITY COLLEGE IN THE COUNTRY. Gainful employment, and those who are its proponents, designed it to kill the for profit sector, end of story &#8211; it only regulates the for profit sector. It doesn&#8217;t hold public institutions or state universities to the same standards that they purport are necessary to a fair and well run institution of higher education. APSCU is not against regulation, they would just like to see some semblance of fair and equitable regulation that isn&#8217;t designed to wipe for profits off the map. The DOE proposed regs ignore public sector institutions with dismal pass and dropout rates, an army of liberal arts majors working in retail, and regardless of how much title IV funding is drawn down by these schools (which by the way are loans that get repaid by students and the government profits from the interest on them), makes no attempt to address how tax dollars are spent in state and federal budgets that are wasted on students who are deliberately failed out of a freshman English class of 300 students taught by a TA because the professor is too busy being held to standards of research publications to attract more federal grants to the university.