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.

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.

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?

I’ve spent a large part of the last two weeks in the Admissions Office gearing up for this year’s admissions cycle. My actual work has been focused on setting up the Student Ambassadors program, an effort to reach out to low-income students by sending Yale students to high schools in their area during breaks that we’ve identified as having a number of high achiever but that don’t traditionally get visited by admissions officers from selective schools like Yale. The University supports the initiative because it helps attract “diamonds in the rough,” increasing the number of low-income students at Yale, but there is of course a larger social benefit: the program addresses the fact that low-income students often don't have guidance counselors walking them through the admissions process or parents paying for SAT courses and helping them apply for scholarships and financial aid. While Ambassadors give presentations on Yale, they usually end up answering more broad questions about admissions and financial aid and often become mentors to the students they visit, guiding them through the application process.

Harvard University announced the other day that it posted a 23% gain in its endowment for the 2007 fiscal year, raising it from $33.5 billion to $41 billion, or to about the total annual GDP of Luxembourg.  $41 billion dollars can go a long way, like giving $10,000 college scholarships to 4.1 million students.  Thankfully, Harvard is starting to recognize its potential to equalize all the inequities in higher education.  Students from families now earning less than $60,000 a year attend the school for free, which resulted in a record 22,995 applicants this past year.  I guess all we need now is for all well-endowed schools to start giving back to middle and lower class students who can’t afford the same education that the wealthy can.

Interesting report in today’s Times on the College of the Ozarks in Point Lookout, Missouri where “work study is not an option as it is at most campuses; it is the college’s raison d’être.”

Students, working families and just about everyone besides corporate lenders were worried yesterday that Congress’ efforts to make college more affordable would be thwarted by a few senators who put the greed of banks over the needs of students. Fear no more! 

The Nelson-Burr Amendment, which would have taken about $3 billion in aid to students and given it to banks in the form of excessive subsidies, failed by a vote of 36-61. See how your senator voted here.

The Senate passed two other amendments on the higher education bill which should give students even more reason to cheer. Sen. Lisa Murkowki’s (you go Alaskan Republicans) amendment to redirect $176 million to the college access partnership grant program passed 73-24. And Ted Kennedy’s amendment to extend need-based Promise grants passed 52-45.

We all cheered last week when the House passed the College Cost Reduction Act, the largest increase in student aid since the G.I. Bill. The talking points should sound familiar by now: the bill would make college more accessible and affordable by increasing need-based grant aid, cutting interest rates in half on Stafford loans, and expanding loan forgiveness. The best part: this would all come at no added cost to taxpayers, since the bill’s benefits would be funded by cutting excessive government subsidies to corporate lenders, who were fattening their wallets on the backs of debt-ridden students.

An unintended consequence of the student loan investigation has finally cropped up. After controversial scandals of financial aid officers taking bribes from student lenders made headlines and led to a few university administrators getting canned, the higher ed world has been debating what regulations must be put in place for financial aid officials “to offer sound, dispassionate advice to prospective borrowers, and to make sure that students have access to the lender of their choice, as federal law requires.”

I'll be back to update this in a few, but I just wanted to give a heads up for you all to turn on C-SPAN where Rep. George Miller is going CRAAZZZYY, ruffling feathers and violating all sorts of rules of order.

Long story short: a few Republicans introduced an amendment which could essentially kill the College Cost Reduction Act of 2007, "the largest investment in higher education since the GI Bill – at no new cost to taxpayers."

Miller went on a roll, tearing into Republicans as the chamber cheered him on: "Why don't you like the fact that we're trying to make college more affordable [and other sound bitey quotes]? Are you proud? Are you proud of this amendment that will KILL THIS BILL?!"

I wish I had set up a live blog for this. Miller's redder than a tomato and he looks like he's about to choke on his vehement outrage.

UPDATE (3:54 PM) - Miller's back on the mic. Will he restore the Congress to its role as a great political theater for eloquent orators in the tradition of Henry Clay and Daniel Webster??

UPDATE (3:58 PM) - No, they get him off the stage quicker than Rabbit gets booed in his first shot at freestyling in 8 Mile.

UPDATE (4:01 PM) - THE BILL PASSES! 273-149!

Shit! It needs 291 to be veto-proof, as Pedro reported this morning.

Stay tuned... 

When Ben Stein dropped by the Campus Progress office, he suggested that reducing student debt wouldn’t be a wise use of taxpayer dollars. (I wanted to write “making college more affordable” instead of “reducing student debt,” but resisted the temptation to “f*ck up the American language”  for Superduperficial’s sake.) Ben and I might disagree on debt relief, but I bet we’d both agree on a plan that would make college more affordable AND save taxpayers money.

The chairman of the House Education Committee introduced a bill today to cut subsidies to student lenders and use the savings to boost financial aid for students. Rep. George Miller (D-CA) proposes slashing the special allowance payment for lenders like Sallie Mae by 0.55 percentage point and channeling $20 billion into student grants over the next five years. This would result in a $500 increase in the Pell grant and a reduction in interest rates on federally guaranteed student loans. The AP story lays out the nitty gritty pretty well.

I'm hoping Congress doesn't buy the lenders' argument that the cut would make lending unprofitable. Thankfully, legislators already have a skeptical eye on them after the wave of scandals that swept through the industry. 

USC’s financial aid director is stepping down after allegations that she violated the school’s conflict of interest policies when she bought stock in Student Loan Xpress. The news of Catherine Thomas’ departure after 17 years on the job comes less than two weeks after Columbia fired its finaid director David Charlow for his ties to the same company.

It seems like things keep getting worse for eager lenders and corrupt university officials involved in the student loan kickback scandals popping up around the country. Sensing this trend, Alabama Contract Sales (a lending company founded by a state representative) ‘fessed up yesterday to federal prosecutors that it had given $83,000 to Roy Johnson, the former chancellor of Alabama’s two-year college system. It only gets juicier with a report in the Birmingham News today that $7,500 of the kickbacks went to an unsuccessful campaign for the Hunstville, Ala. mayoralty. Two birds with one stone! This news will hopefully add some fuel to the trend of lenders coming forward for playing a little I’ll-scratch-yours-if-you-scratch-mine. 

With student lenders facing massive proposed cuts in subsidies from Congress, Sallie Mae is playing a particularly nasty game of racial politics to maintain its privileged standing.

Ever wonder who is lobbying against college affordability behind the scenes? Generation Debt author Anya Kamenetz posted a leaked email on her blog that will give you a great idea of who is fighting hard to squeeze more money out of students and taxpayers. The people listed are all employed by lenders, association created by lenders, or are otherwise interested in defending the student loan industry.  

This has been a bad year for them. They have been under intense scrutiny because of their unseemly ties to financial aid officers. It is increasingly likely that some of the easy money they get from the government will be cut, and used for need-based student aid or to make student loans easier to pay off. They are especially worried now that cuts to lender subsidies will no longer face the possibility of a filibuster.

Lenders and their lobbyists have begun to advocate heavily in an intense effort to save their government handouts at the expense of students – make sure that they are not the only ones heard! CLICK HERE to tell congress to put aid for student above free money for lenders.

Campus Progress recently reported that Florida A&M University was misleading students into thinking that they had no choice of lender for their federal loans. We found out yesterday that they must have gotten the message, because they have taken the problematic text off of their webpage.

Let’s hope that FAMU and all other universities that have not been upfront with students about their rights are revaluating their programs.