The Department of Education recently proposed policies that detail how it will implement the new Income Based Repayment (IBR) and Public Service Loan Forgiveness Programs created through the College Cost Reduction and Access Act last year. These programs will limit monthly payments to manageable percentage of a borrower’s income, and forgive student loans for borrowers who choose a career in public service (click here to learn more).

While most of what the Department of Education has proposed is good, the proposed policies include two unnecessary and costly obstacles for borrowers. Borrowers interested in Public Service Loan Forgiveness would be left in the dark for years on whether their jobs count as eligible public service, and in IBR, some married borrowers would have to pay twice as much on their monthly payments.

Let ED know that they should remove these obstacles – take action now!

Dont forget to check out our Action Alerts Page to make your voice heard on other issues that matter! 

The GI Bill of Rights for the 21st Century (S.22) is expected to be on the  Senate floor this week, and America's veterans need your help. S. 22 would  make sure that veterans who served on active duty after September 11, 2001  have education benefits that measure up to the needs of today’s veterans.

 Since the first GI Bill was signed in 1944 benefits have been scaled back  while tuition has skyrocketed. Currently, it covers only 60-70% of the  average costs of a four year education at a public college. The House of  Representatives has already passed similar legislation, so please call the  US Capitol at (202) 224-3121 and urge your Senators to support our veterans  by passing the GI Bill of Rights for the 21st Century (S.22).

As you have probably heard by now, the “credit crunch” has been making the student loan market less lucrative for many lenders, and has caused a bit of a controversy in the world of higher education.

To recap – lenders are trying to argue that problems in the credit markets will lead to a crisis for students who need loans to attend school, while most others think that the affects for most students will be small. Congress and the Education Department have created new policies to make sure that, no matter what happens, students will be able to access financial aid, but lenders, who already receive government subsidies to make loans to students, keep pushing to get a sweeter deal for their bottom line (as opposed to sweeter deals for students or taxpayers).

I thought this new article in the Chronicle of Higher Education might help point to the difference between planning for the worst (good), and unnecessarily wasting taxpayer money (not so good):

The Quick and the Ed has  a good post today taking apart a letter to the editor where Kevin Bruns, the executive director of America’s Student Loan Providers, pouts about a recent Washington Post editorial about direct loans.

As you have probably heard, we are going through some rocky financial times. A “credit-crunch” fueled recession means that many financial institutions will have a harder time making ends meet, and this, of course, includes student loan companies, as the Washington Post points out today.

Higher education advocates are worried that these lenders are exaggerating the effects of the crisis on the student loan industry as a way to secure unneeded bailouts and get back some of the wasteful subsidies that Congress cut last year in order to increase student aid. They are also worried that all of the hype will mean debt-averse students may be discouraged from “investing” in a college education. Don’t worry – it is very unlikely that you won’t be able to get the loans you need to finance you education.

Brave New Films just came out with a good new video on the DREAM Act – check it out:

This is one of many short films they will be putting out on immigration in the coming months.

The Center for American Progress and Campus Progress are pleased with today’s passage by the House of Representatives of the College Opportunity and Affordability Act (H.R. 4137). This legislation continues to build on Congress’s commitment to making college more affordable and ensuring that Americans are prepared to compete in an increasingly knowledge-based economy. 

An amendment has been introduced that would give important protections to private student loan borrowers.

Since student loan companies lobbied their way into the Bankruptcy Bill in 2005, borrowers have been virtually unable to discharge private student loans through bankruptcy. Instead of treating these loans like credit cards or any other form of consumer debt, they are treated more like a criminal fine. This leaves borrowers few ways to deal with what are often high-cost loans if they run into financial troubles.

Later this week, the House of Representatives is taking up its version of the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act - the law that governs almost every federal program and policy towards higher education. We have a chance, if we act fast, to change this situation. Rep. Danny Davis proposed an amendment that would extend bankruptcy protections to private loan borrowers. 

Please urge your representative to support the Davis Amendment

The Chronicle reported today on an economics professor at Ohio University that says college is overfunded and opposes the Higher Education Act. In fact Richard K. Vedder founded the deceptively named Center for College Affordability & Productivity that has a mission of seeing how "forces of the market can be used to make higher education more affordable and qualitatively better." In short, they want to cut off public funding to colleges and universities, privatize them, and leave students to pay the price.

I'm not an economist, but this doesn't really make sense to me. There are for-profit colleges, but these colleges don't really provide the same education provided at non-profit universities. I think we'd agree that college tends to be overpriced -- with tuition going up in double-digit percentage points in some recent years, but the reason is to make up for the lack of state funding. If we cut this to zero, student would be taking on the whole of the burden. That'd be fine for people that could afford it, but it would really solidify a class divide in this country.

In a closed-door meeting Tuesday night, the University of California Regents announced a 5% increase in all executive salaries, with some executives seeing proposed increases as high as 33%. As mentioned in my previous blog, this occurred the same day that President Bush vetoed the College Opportunity & Affordability Act.

While the two are probably not connected, I find it very poignant that they did occur within hours of each other. Some may not realize that the failure to pass the College Opportunity & Affordability Act has left many middle class families in a difficult situation. On the one hand, they are not poor enough to receive financial aid and on the other hand, they cannot afford to send their children to a decent college even for an arm and a leg.

California students today filed an unprecedented ballot initiative with the Attorney General that would freeze tuition increases at University of California and California State University schools for five years, and to tie tuition increases to the price of inflation after the freeze expires.

The other day I was speaking with one of my coworkers about returning to school to change my career.  We were talking about the hours I will have to work to support my family and how difficult it is going to be to juggle my studies, my job and my two young children.  She asked me about the tuition costs.  She mentioned that when she attended the Technical College it was FREE!  Even when I went to college the first time the two-year colleges were about half the cost of the 4-year Universities.  Today they are about equal, with no relief in sight.  Maybe we need to step back and take a look at our college tuition programs and find a way to keep costs down, give those who otherwise couldn’t afford it a chance to get the education they deserve and provide new financial aid.

            Since the rising cost of tuition and escalating use of financial aid are directly correlated, wouldn’t it make sense that if tuition costs decreased the use of financial aid would also decrease?  Not only would graduating students be less burdened from debt, but there would be more students graduating.  The colleges and universities that are struggling for enrollment numbers and funds would see an increase in both.  The decrease in funds from the initial decrease in tuition payments will be offset by the increase in student enrollment.  Schools might also see an increase in graduate student enrollment.

            Providing new and inventive financial aid assistance may also help non-traditional students go back to school and finish their education.  For example, there is not a financial aid program geared toward adults whom have already established a way of life, i.e. spouse, children, or mortgage, that have decided to go back to school.  They may qualify for some sort of funding, but it would be beneficial to the schools, students and the lending institutions to develop a loan program that requires a student to have a previous degree, children, a mortgage or be a certain age or any combination of the foregoing. 

            It’s time for schools and other funding agencies to think outside the box and start a program that will benefit both the students and themselves.  Our entire economy could turn around if we can increase the worth of the American dollar and what better way to do that than invest it in our futures?

The AP reported that wealthy college endowments are swelling, but this seems to have no effect on rising tuition costs. To me, this is a fundamental problem with the priorities of colleges and universities. When they have a great fundraising year, they seek to use the funds for "improvements." Some of these are necessary, others are not. The Senate Finance Committee is starting to ask some hard questions of such colleges. As recently as last month, the committee examined the outrageous level of inflation on tuition:

"Senators, what would your constituents say if gasoline cost $9.15 a gallon?" Lynne Munson, an adjunct fellow at the Center for College Affordability and Productivity in Washington told the committee. "Or if the price of milk was over $15? That is how much those items would cost if their price had gone up at the same rate that tuition has since 1980."

Students need to hold colleges accountable for the rise in tuition costs, or they will continue to skyrocket. 

The Project on Student Debt just released its study on student debt levels for the class of 2006. It is worth checking out!

Graduates have the highest student debt in [drum roll]: DC and New Hampshire! DC also happens to have the most expensive school in the US. Hawaii gets good beaches, great weather, and graduates who, on average, have the lowest debt in the US. The Project on Student Debt put together a nifty interactive map again, so check out your state.

They also found that student debt levels have risen. The average debt load is now at least $19,646, and is probably closer to $21,146.

Turns out there's nothing redeeming about the Miss America pageant. Its organizers have been getting by for years by by extolling its virtue as a scholarship program, helping beautiful young women everywhere pay for college--but it turns out some of the women who participate in pageants never get paid.

Today's New York Times reports that Miss South Carolina, Miss Five Boroughs of New York, Miss Inland Empire and Miss Prince George’s County were all screwed out of their winnings and given the runaround by their respective pageant organizers:

Saidah Story won a $1,000 scholarship as Miss Inland Empire 2003 in California, but her mother, Renee Wickman, said the pageant director informed her that there would be no scholarship.

“Instead of the scholarship, she was like, ‘You can take these gowns,’ ” Ms. Wickman said. The pageant folded after that year.

It's hard for me to imagine participating in a beauty pageant at all, but I REALLY can't imagine going through all that and then not even getting paid.

via Feministe

Speaker Pelosi held an event at the Capitol yesterday to sign and send to the President very important legislation to make college more affordable.  Here's an excellent quality cell phone shot of the Speaker, Senator Ted Kennedy, Rep. George Miller, Rep. Joe Courtney, and others -- all leaders in this effort to stop the shameful government handout to lenders and use the money to help students afford college. There’s also video of the event. 

 None of this would gave happened without the efforts of young people, through Campus Progress's Debt Hits Hard Campaign, through our Campaign for College Affordability coalition, and other efforts, to demand change.  The efforts of New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, a number of journalists, our own Pedro de la Torre, and others to investigate and expose bad practices and shady dealings between lenders and financial aid offices were also critical. 

The work is by no means done.  College is still out of reach for far too many young people.  One area that needs reform now is private loans, the ones not guaranteed by the government.  Lenders need to present clearer information to students about loan terms – and about the fact that students are better off obtaining all the federally guaranteed loans they can before seeking private loans. 

Right now you can weigh in on this debate, expose more bad behavior, good behavior, or other key facts about financial aid and the loan industry, get your work noticed, and potentially win $2500 to pay tuition or pay off student loans.  It’s our College Affordability Essay Contest – deadline October 29.  Enter now!