After you get a loan for your studies you have to stay in direct contact with a student loan servicing centre. A student loan servicing centre deals with the whole processing of your loan and also with the serviced once you have qualified for the loan. When you apply for a loan you have to keep checking for your status. If you won't chase it then it is very likely that you'll never get a loan since there are thousands of other students trying to get student loans. With the help of a student loan servicing centre you can access your loan status by sitting home. There are a number of different loan servicing centers across United States. The most famous one is NSLSS (national student loan service center).
With the help of a student loan servicing center you can also make you payments or check what will you end up paying? That's true. With the help of a loan repayment calculator you can find out the interest that you'll have to pay on the whole amount and the likely monthly payments. It is very simple to use. You just have to enter the loan amount and interest rate and it will calculate for you the amount of monthly payments as well as the interest that you'll pay for the whole amount of loan. Apart from a loan repayment calculator many student loan servicing centers offer at their sites a unique tool called "loan consolidation calculator". A loan consolidation calculator gives you the figures of monthly payments and your interest rate if you consolidate you first and second loans.
Other notable student loan servicing centers include SLSC situated in New York. It is currently dealing with over 55 universities. A servicing center can also let you change your payment plan online or make debt consolidation easily online. It saves your precious time and saves you the trouble of going all the way to an office of a loan servicing center, waiting in a long que for your turn and then filing for case. You can do this all by sitting at one place and without much physical improvement. A loan servicing center is of a great help to an individual (especially students who can save their time to invest in studies). Every individual must be clear about it and must utilize the facilities provided by a student loan servicing center.
11/25/2007
New revenue stream for student loan consolidation companies
Great News!! Student Financial Advisors is now accepting affiliates for partnerships on offering help with defaulted student loans. As part of our on going effort to provide students with the best customer service in the industry we can now offer student loan consolidation companies a profitable avenue to help students who have defaulted on their student loans.
Student Financial Advisors as several options to refinance defaulted student loans.
Once a student loan goes into "default" status the full balance of the loan becomes due immediately. It also means that other options for delaying payment, including student loan deferment and forbearance, can no longer be used. Most importantly student loan consolidation companies, up until now, had no options to help the student with defaulted student loans. This is a new revenue stream for student loan consolidation companies. Best of all after the nine month rehabilitation process the referring student loan consolation company can consolidate those students’ federal student loans.
Eventually, unpaid defaulted student loans can have long-term consequences beyond just the loan directly. For example, the students' credit report will take a hit. Once the loan has been forwarded for collection the student’s wages can be garnished and their federal income tax refunds can be withheld. You also lose your eligibility for other types of federal loans including student loan consolidation. Given the size of most student loans, it's usually impossible to repay a defaulted student loan in the single payment that loan collectors may request. There are mechanisms for repaying defaulted student loans and for both regaining your eligibility for more student loans and improving their credit score.
At Student Financial Advisors we offer assistance to everyday people, looking for financial relief from their student loan debt, federal and private. Daily, we provide help to dozens of people who want to avoid administrative wage garnishments and tax offsets. We help people establish affordable payments and reduce penalties and fees. We assist with student loan consolidation as well as work within a competitive system in which lenders compete for your student loans. This competitive environment yields the best interest rate for the student.
If your company is looking for a way to help students get out of default and get paid for it please contact us at www.studentfinancialadvisors.com
Student Financial Advisors as several options to refinance defaulted student loans.
Once a student loan goes into "default" status the full balance of the loan becomes due immediately. It also means that other options for delaying payment, including student loan deferment and forbearance, can no longer be used. Most importantly student loan consolidation companies, up until now, had no options to help the student with defaulted student loans. This is a new revenue stream for student loan consolidation companies. Best of all after the nine month rehabilitation process the referring student loan consolation company can consolidate those students’ federal student loans.
Eventually, unpaid defaulted student loans can have long-term consequences beyond just the loan directly. For example, the students' credit report will take a hit. Once the loan has been forwarded for collection the student’s wages can be garnished and their federal income tax refunds can be withheld. You also lose your eligibility for other types of federal loans including student loan consolidation. Given the size of most student loans, it's usually impossible to repay a defaulted student loan in the single payment that loan collectors may request. There are mechanisms for repaying defaulted student loans and for both regaining your eligibility for more student loans and improving their credit score.
At Student Financial Advisors we offer assistance to everyday people, looking for financial relief from their student loan debt, federal and private. Daily, we provide help to dozens of people who want to avoid administrative wage garnishments and tax offsets. We help people establish affordable payments and reduce penalties and fees. We assist with student loan consolidation as well as work within a competitive system in which lenders compete for your student loans. This competitive environment yields the best interest rate for the student.
If your company is looking for a way to help students get out of default and get paid for it please contact us at www.studentfinancialadvisors.com
11/20/2007
Tuscson Man Faces Criminal Charges In Fraudulent Student Loan Scheme
Federal investigation shows he netted over $624,000
TUCSON, Ariz. – LAWFUEL - The Legal Newswire - Stephen Gallagher, 27, of Tucson, was arrested on November 9, 2007, and made his initial appearance in U.S. District Court on November 13, 2007 for allegedly engaging in a fraudulent scheme to obtain student loan funds which netted him over $624,000. On November 15, 2007, a U.S. Magistrate Judge set a $5,000 cash or corporate surety bond for his release which was posted later that day.
The criminal complaint, filed on November 8, 2007, alleges that from 2003 to 2007, Gallagher submitted over 200 student loan applications via the Internet to various financial institutions. The majority of these loan applications originated from one of eight different America On-Line (AOL) email accounts registered in the name of Stephen Gallagher. He submitted loan applications in his own name as well as in the names of unsuspecting individuals, later adding these other individuals to his bank account so he could deposit the student loan checks which were made payable in the name of the borrower. Supporting documentation, such as proof of employment and residence verification, was submitted to each financial intuition via FAX machine. Much of this documentation was determined to be fraudulent.
To date, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has identified approximately 42 fraudulent student loans totaling $624,287.32 to be associated with Gallagher. Applications were submitted for attendance at Stanford University, George Washington University, University of Arizona, and Scottsdale Culinary Institute. None of the individuals listed as the borrower on the student loan applications ever attended these institutions. The financial institutions that funded the student loans include: First Marblehead, Wells Fargo, Key Bank, Education Finance Partners, Suntrust, JP Morgan Chase Bank, Chela Funding, Richland Bank, and Sallie Mae. In total, Gallagher applied for over $10 million in student loan funds from these financial institutions.
A conviction for bank fraud carries a maximum penalty of 30 years in federal prison, a $1 million fine, or both. A criminal complaint is simply the method by which a person is charged with criminal activity and raises no inference of guilt. An individual is presumed innocent until competent evidence is presented to a jury that establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The investigation was conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation with assistance from the U.S. Department of Education. The prosecution is being handled by Eric Markovich, Assistant U.S. Attorney, District of Arizona, Tucson, Ariz.
TUCSON, Ariz. – LAWFUEL - The Legal Newswire - Stephen Gallagher, 27, of Tucson, was arrested on November 9, 2007, and made his initial appearance in U.S. District Court on November 13, 2007 for allegedly engaging in a fraudulent scheme to obtain student loan funds which netted him over $624,000. On November 15, 2007, a U.S. Magistrate Judge set a $5,000 cash or corporate surety bond for his release which was posted later that day.
The criminal complaint, filed on November 8, 2007, alleges that from 2003 to 2007, Gallagher submitted over 200 student loan applications via the Internet to various financial institutions. The majority of these loan applications originated from one of eight different America On-Line (AOL) email accounts registered in the name of Stephen Gallagher. He submitted loan applications in his own name as well as in the names of unsuspecting individuals, later adding these other individuals to his bank account so he could deposit the student loan checks which were made payable in the name of the borrower. Supporting documentation, such as proof of employment and residence verification, was submitted to each financial intuition via FAX machine. Much of this documentation was determined to be fraudulent.
To date, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has identified approximately 42 fraudulent student loans totaling $624,287.32 to be associated with Gallagher. Applications were submitted for attendance at Stanford University, George Washington University, University of Arizona, and Scottsdale Culinary Institute. None of the individuals listed as the borrower on the student loan applications ever attended these institutions. The financial institutions that funded the student loans include: First Marblehead, Wells Fargo, Key Bank, Education Finance Partners, Suntrust, JP Morgan Chase Bank, Chela Funding, Richland Bank, and Sallie Mae. In total, Gallagher applied for over $10 million in student loan funds from these financial institutions.
A conviction for bank fraud carries a maximum penalty of 30 years in federal prison, a $1 million fine, or both. A criminal complaint is simply the method by which a person is charged with criminal activity and raises no inference of guilt. An individual is presumed innocent until competent evidence is presented to a jury that establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The investigation was conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation with assistance from the U.S. Department of Education. The prosecution is being handled by Eric Markovich, Assistant U.S. Attorney, District of Arizona, Tucson, Ariz.
Reformed education act targets student fees, loans, downloading
The House of Representatives proposed changes and additions to the Higher Education Act last Friday that will affect students in many areas, including illegal downloading, student fees, accreditation practices and student loans.
The Higher Education Act is due for renewal and any legislation enacted will determine higher education policy for the next five years. The bill was originally created in 1965 to strengthen educational resources available to colleges and universities and to provide financial assistance to students.
The Senate passed its version of the bill in July. The House proposed its initial version of the bill last week, which was marked up in the Education Committee on Wednesday.
A change that will directly impact students is the crackdown on illegal downloading within the proposed legislation. It requires institutions to educate their students on policies regarding copyright infringement on campus networks. It also requires that colleges eligible for federal financial aid under Title IV, a section of the Higher Education Act that defines all federal loans available to students, to develop a plan for offering alternatives to illegal downloading,
“About 44 percent of domestic piracy losses nationwide, over $500 million, are due to college students,” said Kori Bernard, a spokeswoman for the Motion Picture Association of America, which supports the legislation.
“We are requesting minimally invasive efforts to reduce piracy on college campuses,” Bernard added.
Educause, a nonprofit organization concerned with proper technology use in higher education, called the second portion of the legislation “unacceptable,” according to The Chronicle of Higher Education.
“These provisions of the bill are misdirected at higher education,” said Steven Worona, Educause director of policy and networking programs.
Most infringement by college students occurs on commercial networks that are not associated with their college. Less than 4 percent of infringers are using college campus networks and therefore account for no more than 9 percent of the losses. The statistic that attributes 44 percent of piracy to college campuses is both misleading and false, Worona said.
“Campuses are already attacking this problem as aggressively as possible. The source of the problem should be targeted and that’s not higher education,” Worona said.
In their separate proposals, both the Senate and the House agreed on modifications to the act, including allowing the Secretary of Education to establish a Higher Education Price Index in order to identify colleges whose tuition and fees are unusually high and place them on a watch list.
The House went beyond the Senate, mandating that colleges on the watch list submit a report explaining the reasons for their unusually high fees, and outlining steps that will be taken to prevent future increases in fees, according to The Chronicle of Higher Education.
To create further incentives to prevent fee increases, the House also proposed offering additional grant money to colleges that restrained their tuition growth, said Rachel Racusen, spokeswoman for Representative George Miller of California, who is chairman of the House Education and Labor committee. States would also be punished for cutting their higher education budgets.
“States that fail to meet the mandated standards would risk losing these funds,” Racusen said. States faced with fiscal difficulties would be eligible for a waiver from the Secretary of Education.
“To expand college access to millions of students and families and to ensure that our higher education system operates in the best interest of helping students attend and pay for college is a top priority of Miller’s office,” Racusen said.
Congress is also addressing is the 90-10 rule, which requires career colleges, which provide vocational educations, to receive at least 10 percent of their revenue from sources other than federal student aid in order to be eligible for the financial aid benefits of Title IV.
“A minority of these schools were diploma mills that took advantage of students and were not legitimate institutions,” said Harris N. Miller, chairman of the Career College Association.
Currently, these institutions are subject to stringent accreditation requirements. At the same time, their student population has grown from about 2 percent of higher education students in 1995, to about 10 percent today, Miller said.
The new legislation modifies the act to broaden the sources that can comprise the 10 percent of non-governmental funding to include scholarships and existing short-term educational programs.
Miller said he is optimistic that the resulting bill will remove unnecessary restrictions.
“Schools are being forced to artificially raise tuition to meet the 10 percent standard, creating a situation where tuition is being raised only to meet bureaucratic requirements,” Miller said.
In terms of accreditation, both the Senate and the House aim to hold colleges more responsible for evidence of student achievement and to make accreditation practices more transparent, according to The Chronicle of Higher Education.
“Almost 40 percent of students that receive degrees from traditional school have transferred from one college to another, but many schools are ripping off their students by forcing them to take the same classes twice,” Miller said.
Colleges have adopted voluntary policies stating that the source of accreditation should not be the sole basis for an applicant’s rejection, but blatant violations of these self-imposed rules are frequent, Miller said.
The bill requires that accreditation practices be made publicly available.
“This is a partial victory, and a major step forward,” Miller said.
The proposed legislation also attempts to reduce student expenditures by revamping student loan practices.The Senate and the House are aiming to reduce conflicts of interest within the student loan industry between lenders and colleges by outlawing questionable practices and increasing transparency, according to The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Colleges that recommend preferred lenders must include at least three unaffiliated providers for government-backed loans and two other providers for private lenders. In addition, annual reports justifying choices and criteria for selections must be submitted to the Secretary of Education.
Revenue-sharing between colleges and lenders, and “co-branding,” or allowing lenders to use a college’s mascot in marketing materials, will be banned under the new legislation.
A top priority of Rep. George Miller’s office is to make information available to students and their families to help them understand the financial opportunities available to them, spokeswoman Racusen said.
The Higher Education Act is due for renewal and any legislation enacted will determine higher education policy for the next five years. The bill was originally created in 1965 to strengthen educational resources available to colleges and universities and to provide financial assistance to students.
The Senate passed its version of the bill in July. The House proposed its initial version of the bill last week, which was marked up in the Education Committee on Wednesday.
A change that will directly impact students is the crackdown on illegal downloading within the proposed legislation. It requires institutions to educate their students on policies regarding copyright infringement on campus networks. It also requires that colleges eligible for federal financial aid under Title IV, a section of the Higher Education Act that defines all federal loans available to students, to develop a plan for offering alternatives to illegal downloading,
“About 44 percent of domestic piracy losses nationwide, over $500 million, are due to college students,” said Kori Bernard, a spokeswoman for the Motion Picture Association of America, which supports the legislation.
“We are requesting minimally invasive efforts to reduce piracy on college campuses,” Bernard added.
Educause, a nonprofit organization concerned with proper technology use in higher education, called the second portion of the legislation “unacceptable,” according to The Chronicle of Higher Education.
“These provisions of the bill are misdirected at higher education,” said Steven Worona, Educause director of policy and networking programs.
Most infringement by college students occurs on commercial networks that are not associated with their college. Less than 4 percent of infringers are using college campus networks and therefore account for no more than 9 percent of the losses. The statistic that attributes 44 percent of piracy to college campuses is both misleading and false, Worona said.
“Campuses are already attacking this problem as aggressively as possible. The source of the problem should be targeted and that’s not higher education,” Worona said.
In their separate proposals, both the Senate and the House agreed on modifications to the act, including allowing the Secretary of Education to establish a Higher Education Price Index in order to identify colleges whose tuition and fees are unusually high and place them on a watch list.
The House went beyond the Senate, mandating that colleges on the watch list submit a report explaining the reasons for their unusually high fees, and outlining steps that will be taken to prevent future increases in fees, according to The Chronicle of Higher Education.
To create further incentives to prevent fee increases, the House also proposed offering additional grant money to colleges that restrained their tuition growth, said Rachel Racusen, spokeswoman for Representative George Miller of California, who is chairman of the House Education and Labor committee. States would also be punished for cutting their higher education budgets.
“States that fail to meet the mandated standards would risk losing these funds,” Racusen said. States faced with fiscal difficulties would be eligible for a waiver from the Secretary of Education.
“To expand college access to millions of students and families and to ensure that our higher education system operates in the best interest of helping students attend and pay for college is a top priority of Miller’s office,” Racusen said.
Congress is also addressing is the 90-10 rule, which requires career colleges, which provide vocational educations, to receive at least 10 percent of their revenue from sources other than federal student aid in order to be eligible for the financial aid benefits of Title IV.
“A minority of these schools were diploma mills that took advantage of students and were not legitimate institutions,” said Harris N. Miller, chairman of the Career College Association.
Currently, these institutions are subject to stringent accreditation requirements. At the same time, their student population has grown from about 2 percent of higher education students in 1995, to about 10 percent today, Miller said.
The new legislation modifies the act to broaden the sources that can comprise the 10 percent of non-governmental funding to include scholarships and existing short-term educational programs.
Miller said he is optimistic that the resulting bill will remove unnecessary restrictions.
“Schools are being forced to artificially raise tuition to meet the 10 percent standard, creating a situation where tuition is being raised only to meet bureaucratic requirements,” Miller said.
In terms of accreditation, both the Senate and the House aim to hold colleges more responsible for evidence of student achievement and to make accreditation practices more transparent, according to The Chronicle of Higher Education.
“Almost 40 percent of students that receive degrees from traditional school have transferred from one college to another, but many schools are ripping off their students by forcing them to take the same classes twice,” Miller said.
Colleges have adopted voluntary policies stating that the source of accreditation should not be the sole basis for an applicant’s rejection, but blatant violations of these self-imposed rules are frequent, Miller said.
The bill requires that accreditation practices be made publicly available.
“This is a partial victory, and a major step forward,” Miller said.
The proposed legislation also attempts to reduce student expenditures by revamping student loan practices.The Senate and the House are aiming to reduce conflicts of interest within the student loan industry between lenders and colleges by outlawing questionable practices and increasing transparency, according to The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Colleges that recommend preferred lenders must include at least three unaffiliated providers for government-backed loans and two other providers for private lenders. In addition, annual reports justifying choices and criteria for selections must be submitted to the Secretary of Education.
Revenue-sharing between colleges and lenders, and “co-branding,” or allowing lenders to use a college’s mascot in marketing materials, will be banned under the new legislation.
A top priority of Rep. George Miller’s office is to make information available to students and their families to help them understand the financial opportunities available to them, spokeswoman Racusen said.
Who Should Be Ashamed?
Even as they scramble for positions on some lists ("best colleges,” “top grant recipients” and so forth) colleges have lots of lists they want to stay off of: AAUP censure, NCAA probation, and others.
Looking for a job?
See all 204 new postings
Browse all job listings:
Faculty: 3,480
Administrative: 2,008
Executive: 152
FEATURED EMPLOYERS
Post a job
Related stories
* The Pendulum Swings on Accreditation, Nov. 19
* Cost of College a Bipartisan Concern, Nov. 12
* Looking Under the Hood of Public Higher Ed, Nov. 2
* Rate of Tuition Increases Is Up, Oct. 23
* Price Controls or Transparency?, June 15
E-mail this page E-mail
Print this page Print
The idea that colleges would take steps to avoid being on bad lists is behind a measure drawing bipartisan support in Congress — and infuriating many college officials. A measure in the bill to reauthorize the Higher Education Act would create “watch lists” of institutions with tuition increases above the average for their sector. The hope is that colleges may moderate increases to avoid ending up on the list — or be exposed for faulty management if they do. Rep. Howard P. (Buck) McKeon, a California Republican who has been pushing the idea for some time, issued a press release that said the watch lists will “shine a spotlight on excessive tuition increases.”
The legislation comes at a time that many in Congress are also raising questions about large college endowments and asking if the wealthiest colleges couldn’t somehow spend more of their endowment or other funds and minimize tuition increases. But a review of existing data suggests that the colleges that would end up on the watch list aren’t terribly wealthy. Rather, they seem to fall into two groups: public institutions in states where appropriations are tight, and private colleges whose operating budgets are tuition driven because endowments are small.
In fact, while many experts believe that colleges — and especially the wealthiest ones — can do more to control their own costs and, in turn, what they charge to students, they point to lots of problems with the dividing lines this bill would draw.
Take the colleges with mega-endowments — the places some think could afford to be free. Of the wealthiest 10 private universities (a club you need about $5 billion to join), not a single one of them would end up on the watch list. The average tuition and fee increase for private, four-year colleges this year was 6.3 percent and the top 10 in endowment wealth didn’t have a tuition rate that hit even 6 percent (five were in the mid-5 percents, and the rest were lower still).
Among the institutions that would certainly not need to worry about ending up on the watch list is Princeton University, which this year froze tuition (although it had a healthy increase in room and board charges, which don’t count for getting an institution on the watch list).
But if Princeton has nothing to worry about it with regard to the watch list, Saint Peter’s College, in Jersey City, does. Its tuition increase this year is about 6 percent, just below average, and some years the college is above average. So in theory, this is the kind of institution that might be motivated by a watch list and want to stay off of it.
But Eugene J. Cornacchia, the president, says flat out that the watch list would by necessity have no impact on decision making — although it could hurt the college. Like many of the private colleges that would end up on the list, Saint Peter’s is tuition driven. About 90 percent of its budget comes from tuition. So the idea that the college could decide to go down a bit to avoid being on some federal list just isn’t realistic, Cornacchia said.
“Our 6 percent tuition increase does not give us any latitude,” he said. “It was the minimum amount needed to accomplish what we need to do. It’s not like we could do away with even.1 percent of it,” he said. Cut the budget, “and it would mean layoffs or reductions to students.”
Comparing Princeton and Saint Peter’s illustrates the latter’s president’s frustration. As far as the legislation is concerned, they are in the same category.
But by endowment, Princeton had $13 billion (a year ago) while Saint Peter’s has $32 million. Full professors at Princeton earn more than twice what those at Saint Peter’s are paid. About 7 percent of Princeton students are eligible for Pell Grants (a good proxy for low-income students) while about 40 percent of Saint Peter’s students are. In fact, only 1 percent of Saint Peter’s students don’t receive aid of some form from the college. (And even with the fact that Saint Peter’s had an increase this year, its tuition and fees total of just over $24,000 is much less than Princeton’s total of $33,000.)
Cornacchia stressed that he doesn’t begrudge Princeton its success and wishes it well at achieving its mission. But that Princeton’s ability to skip a tuition increase could set up Saint Peter’s for looking bad by comparison in some federal formula is a flaw, he said.
“That’s the problem with these kinds of lists that come out. I think of the No Child Left Behind disaster, and we’re again developing all sorts of lists based on data which may or may not be related to anything based on education, and it stigmatizes institutions,” Cornacchia said.
The gap between Princeton and Jersey City isn’t by any means unique. Go to other states known for wealthy private colleges and the situation is the same — the famous institutions with large endowments will not turn up on the list. In Massachusetts, there is no danger of Amherst, Mount Holyoke, Smith or Williams ending up on the watch list. Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology are safe, too. The colleges close to the average or above it (those that would make the list) are the colleges whose endowments are small by comparison and in many cases they are colleges that educate many first generation students — places like Pine Manor and Emmanuel Colleges or Suffolk University.
Richard Doherty, president of the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities in Massachusetts, said that his state shows the flaws in basing a watch list on percentages. “The smaller schools will get hurt,” he said, because they are more dependent on tuition, and more vulnerable to sudden increases in expenses, such as energy costs. It is the colleges with the smaller endowments (which are more likely to end up on the watch list) that have the least flexibility, Doherty said.
“The notion that there are efficiencies that colleges are not trying to pursue currently is just a fallacy,” he said.
Some colleges with much larger endowments say that there are other flaws in the percentage approach. Grinnell College, with a billion-plus endowment that tops all other liberal arts colleges, added 15 percent last year to the regular tuition increase and imposed the higher expense on this year’s freshmen only (although it will carry on as more classes enroll). The extra funds are being used to forgive more student debt, to change financial aid formulas that students said previously didn’t cover the real costs of books and other expenses, to add new scholarships and so forth.
The question for the college as students arrived in the fall was whether the changes — and the higher sticker price — would scare off low-income students. Russell K. Osgood, Grinnell’s president, said that the striking thing was that the class didn’t change at all — more than 85 percent qualifying for some kind of aid, just as in previous years. To Osgood this suggests that students and parents look beyond sticker price and realize what a small share of students and families pay full price and the percentage increase associated with it.
“What I conclude from the whole thing is that parents and students are quite sophisticated about the net cost of a college,” he said. The idea that Congress is somehow saving students from colleges with high percentage increases doesn’t make sense when students realize they might be getting something valuable as a result, he added. “All I would say is that I think Congress should take into account that there are all different sorts and kinds of colleges and to identify a watch list based on a single criterion strikes me as unwise or unjustified.”
The Picture for Public Colleges
If the key factor private college leaders predict would keep a college off the watch list is wealth, the key factor public college leaders predict is the wealth of a state in a given year. If the watch list existed this year, there would be plenty of Michigan public colleges on it — with a collapsing state budget and significant cuts, colleges have imposed tuition increases, some of them double digit.
Michigan State University, which took pride a few years back in multiple years of minimal tuition increases, is up nearly 10 percent for state residents.
Terry Denbow, vice president of university relations at Michigan State, noted that trustees at Michigan State are elected in statewide votes and decide on tuition in open meetings. “The transparency and accountability of pure democracy, quite literally, are alive each time tuition is set.”
Denbow said that the university’s record makes clear that when state appropriations are available, tuition increases are minimal. And when tuition increases are needed, the university has increased financial aid budgets by an average of 4.5 percentage points above the tuition increase.
Putting Michigan State (and most of the rest of public higher education in the state) on a watch list wouldn’t really accomplish much, he said. “This would impose an unnecessary burden, administratively and otherwise, built upon a flawed process and homogeneous scorecard for declaring winners and losers,” he said.
Similarly, California State University could be headed toward a tuition increase in the 10 percent magnitude — the kind of percentage that might land an institution on the watch list.
Patrick Lenz, assistant vice chancellor of the system, said that in recent years, Cal State has had increases in the 10 percent range and years of no increases at all. In the latter, the state finds itself taking in more money than projected and “buys out” any tuition increase that would be needed. In years like this one, when reports of the depths of California’s deficit continue to increase, the opposite happens, he said.
“I’m really not sure the point of this watch list,” he said.
California State’s tuition and fees for a year (many Californians who believe in the state’s no-tuition philosophy insist on calling the total entirely fees, but it is similar to tuition and fees elsewhere) are well under $4,000 for a year (a figure that is well under the $6,185 average for public four-year institutions). Lenz said that it is legitimate to compare universities on costs, and that Cal State maintains a list of 15 institutions it looks at for comparison purposes — a group that includes University of Nevada at Reno, Arizona State University, Georgia State University and George Mason University. Cal State costs $500 less than anyone else in the group, Lenz said.
Part of the concern is that colleges wouldn’t just get branded was institutions that need to be watched, but would have to spend more money as a result. Each institution would have to create a “quality efficiency task force” that would have to analyze the ways in which the institution is operating “more expensively to produce a similar result” as its peers. Institutions whose percentage increases would place them on the list would be exempt if they are in the bottom quartile for their sector or if their dollar increases don’t top $500 over three years, an exemption expected to help many community colleges, where the average increase in actual dollars this year was just $95.
Sandy Baum, a Skidmore College economist and senior policy analyst at the College Board, said that there are many types of colleges that would not change behavior because of the watch list. The wealthiest colleges — those seen by some as contributing to an “arms race” in which new programs and fancier facilities multiply — will be able to continue that arms race without getting on the list, she said. And colleges without much money (either private institutions or publics in tight budget cycles) have real constraints on their prices.
There may, however, be a group of private colleges that are in between — not totally tuition dependent, but not with billion-dollar endowments either. Some of those institutions, she said, might be motivated to try to carve a bit out of tuition increases to stay below average on price. But Baum said it was hard to predict.
Ronald G. Ehrenberg, director of the Cornell University Higher Education Research Institute and editor of What’s Happening to Public Higher Education (Praeger, 2006), said the key question for colleges would be whether being on the watch list had an impact on the behavior of potential students. For colleges that have desirable qualities, he doubts that it will.
“If you the student are trying to make a decision to go to X vs.Y, and X is a shamed institution on the list and Y is not, is that going to affect your decision at all, if X promises you more in terms of educational opportunities and potential for earnings and graduate school education. In a way, I don’t think it’s any different from the way continuing raising high tuitions have not kept the number of applications to selective institutions from going up,” Ehrenberg said.
The potential benefit of the watch list may be rhetorical, he added. “If this is just a way of calling attention to higher education about trying to be efficient and hold down costs, maybe it will serve some useful function,” he said.
Just about everybody interviewed for this article — including several who didn’t want to be quoted for fear of attracting attention to their institutions’ rates — said that there are colleges, public and private, charging too much and deserving of more scrutiny. The problem, they said, was that the proposal advancing in Congress appears likely to point fingers in the wrong direction.
Baum said that the proposal reflected the wide consensus that the problem is real. “I’m sympathetic to the idea we have to do something to slow this down,” she said. “I don’t know that anybody has a good answer to what the best approach is.”
— Scott Jaschik
Looking for a job?
See all 204 new postings
Browse all job listings:
Faculty: 3,480
Administrative: 2,008
Executive: 152
FEATURED EMPLOYERS
Post a job
Related stories
* The Pendulum Swings on Accreditation, Nov. 19
* Cost of College a Bipartisan Concern, Nov. 12
* Looking Under the Hood of Public Higher Ed, Nov. 2
* Rate of Tuition Increases Is Up, Oct. 23
* Price Controls or Transparency?, June 15
E-mail this page E-mail
Print this page Print
The idea that colleges would take steps to avoid being on bad lists is behind a measure drawing bipartisan support in Congress — and infuriating many college officials. A measure in the bill to reauthorize the Higher Education Act would create “watch lists” of institutions with tuition increases above the average for their sector. The hope is that colleges may moderate increases to avoid ending up on the list — or be exposed for faulty management if they do. Rep. Howard P. (Buck) McKeon, a California Republican who has been pushing the idea for some time, issued a press release that said the watch lists will “shine a spotlight on excessive tuition increases.”
The legislation comes at a time that many in Congress are also raising questions about large college endowments and asking if the wealthiest colleges couldn’t somehow spend more of their endowment or other funds and minimize tuition increases. But a review of existing data suggests that the colleges that would end up on the watch list aren’t terribly wealthy. Rather, they seem to fall into two groups: public institutions in states where appropriations are tight, and private colleges whose operating budgets are tuition driven because endowments are small.
In fact, while many experts believe that colleges — and especially the wealthiest ones — can do more to control their own costs and, in turn, what they charge to students, they point to lots of problems with the dividing lines this bill would draw.
Take the colleges with mega-endowments — the places some think could afford to be free. Of the wealthiest 10 private universities (a club you need about $5 billion to join), not a single one of them would end up on the watch list. The average tuition and fee increase for private, four-year colleges this year was 6.3 percent and the top 10 in endowment wealth didn’t have a tuition rate that hit even 6 percent (five were in the mid-5 percents, and the rest were lower still).
Among the institutions that would certainly not need to worry about ending up on the watch list is Princeton University, which this year froze tuition (although it had a healthy increase in room and board charges, which don’t count for getting an institution on the watch list).
But if Princeton has nothing to worry about it with regard to the watch list, Saint Peter’s College, in Jersey City, does. Its tuition increase this year is about 6 percent, just below average, and some years the college is above average. So in theory, this is the kind of institution that might be motivated by a watch list and want to stay off of it.
But Eugene J. Cornacchia, the president, says flat out that the watch list would by necessity have no impact on decision making — although it could hurt the college. Like many of the private colleges that would end up on the list, Saint Peter’s is tuition driven. About 90 percent of its budget comes from tuition. So the idea that the college could decide to go down a bit to avoid being on some federal list just isn’t realistic, Cornacchia said.
“Our 6 percent tuition increase does not give us any latitude,” he said. “It was the minimum amount needed to accomplish what we need to do. It’s not like we could do away with even.1 percent of it,” he said. Cut the budget, “and it would mean layoffs or reductions to students.”
Comparing Princeton and Saint Peter’s illustrates the latter’s president’s frustration. As far as the legislation is concerned, they are in the same category.
But by endowment, Princeton had $13 billion (a year ago) while Saint Peter’s has $32 million. Full professors at Princeton earn more than twice what those at Saint Peter’s are paid. About 7 percent of Princeton students are eligible for Pell Grants (a good proxy for low-income students) while about 40 percent of Saint Peter’s students are. In fact, only 1 percent of Saint Peter’s students don’t receive aid of some form from the college. (And even with the fact that Saint Peter’s had an increase this year, its tuition and fees total of just over $24,000 is much less than Princeton’s total of $33,000.)
Cornacchia stressed that he doesn’t begrudge Princeton its success and wishes it well at achieving its mission. But that Princeton’s ability to skip a tuition increase could set up Saint Peter’s for looking bad by comparison in some federal formula is a flaw, he said.
“That’s the problem with these kinds of lists that come out. I think of the No Child Left Behind disaster, and we’re again developing all sorts of lists based on data which may or may not be related to anything based on education, and it stigmatizes institutions,” Cornacchia said.
The gap between Princeton and Jersey City isn’t by any means unique. Go to other states known for wealthy private colleges and the situation is the same — the famous institutions with large endowments will not turn up on the list. In Massachusetts, there is no danger of Amherst, Mount Holyoke, Smith or Williams ending up on the watch list. Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology are safe, too. The colleges close to the average or above it (those that would make the list) are the colleges whose endowments are small by comparison and in many cases they are colleges that educate many first generation students — places like Pine Manor and Emmanuel Colleges or Suffolk University.
Richard Doherty, president of the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities in Massachusetts, said that his state shows the flaws in basing a watch list on percentages. “The smaller schools will get hurt,” he said, because they are more dependent on tuition, and more vulnerable to sudden increases in expenses, such as energy costs. It is the colleges with the smaller endowments (which are more likely to end up on the watch list) that have the least flexibility, Doherty said.
“The notion that there are efficiencies that colleges are not trying to pursue currently is just a fallacy,” he said.
Some colleges with much larger endowments say that there are other flaws in the percentage approach. Grinnell College, with a billion-plus endowment that tops all other liberal arts colleges, added 15 percent last year to the regular tuition increase and imposed the higher expense on this year’s freshmen only (although it will carry on as more classes enroll). The extra funds are being used to forgive more student debt, to change financial aid formulas that students said previously didn’t cover the real costs of books and other expenses, to add new scholarships and so forth.
The question for the college as students arrived in the fall was whether the changes — and the higher sticker price — would scare off low-income students. Russell K. Osgood, Grinnell’s president, said that the striking thing was that the class didn’t change at all — more than 85 percent qualifying for some kind of aid, just as in previous years. To Osgood this suggests that students and parents look beyond sticker price and realize what a small share of students and families pay full price and the percentage increase associated with it.
“What I conclude from the whole thing is that parents and students are quite sophisticated about the net cost of a college,” he said. The idea that Congress is somehow saving students from colleges with high percentage increases doesn’t make sense when students realize they might be getting something valuable as a result, he added. “All I would say is that I think Congress should take into account that there are all different sorts and kinds of colleges and to identify a watch list based on a single criterion strikes me as unwise or unjustified.”
The Picture for Public Colleges
If the key factor private college leaders predict would keep a college off the watch list is wealth, the key factor public college leaders predict is the wealth of a state in a given year. If the watch list existed this year, there would be plenty of Michigan public colleges on it — with a collapsing state budget and significant cuts, colleges have imposed tuition increases, some of them double digit.
Michigan State University, which took pride a few years back in multiple years of minimal tuition increases, is up nearly 10 percent for state residents.
Terry Denbow, vice president of university relations at Michigan State, noted that trustees at Michigan State are elected in statewide votes and decide on tuition in open meetings. “The transparency and accountability of pure democracy, quite literally, are alive each time tuition is set.”
Denbow said that the university’s record makes clear that when state appropriations are available, tuition increases are minimal. And when tuition increases are needed, the university has increased financial aid budgets by an average of 4.5 percentage points above the tuition increase.
Putting Michigan State (and most of the rest of public higher education in the state) on a watch list wouldn’t really accomplish much, he said. “This would impose an unnecessary burden, administratively and otherwise, built upon a flawed process and homogeneous scorecard for declaring winners and losers,” he said.
Similarly, California State University could be headed toward a tuition increase in the 10 percent magnitude — the kind of percentage that might land an institution on the watch list.
Patrick Lenz, assistant vice chancellor of the system, said that in recent years, Cal State has had increases in the 10 percent range and years of no increases at all. In the latter, the state finds itself taking in more money than projected and “buys out” any tuition increase that would be needed. In years like this one, when reports of the depths of California’s deficit continue to increase, the opposite happens, he said.
“I’m really not sure the point of this watch list,” he said.
California State’s tuition and fees for a year (many Californians who believe in the state’s no-tuition philosophy insist on calling the total entirely fees, but it is similar to tuition and fees elsewhere) are well under $4,000 for a year (a figure that is well under the $6,185 average for public four-year institutions). Lenz said that it is legitimate to compare universities on costs, and that Cal State maintains a list of 15 institutions it looks at for comparison purposes — a group that includes University of Nevada at Reno, Arizona State University, Georgia State University and George Mason University. Cal State costs $500 less than anyone else in the group, Lenz said.
Part of the concern is that colleges wouldn’t just get branded was institutions that need to be watched, but would have to spend more money as a result. Each institution would have to create a “quality efficiency task force” that would have to analyze the ways in which the institution is operating “more expensively to produce a similar result” as its peers. Institutions whose percentage increases would place them on the list would be exempt if they are in the bottom quartile for their sector or if their dollar increases don’t top $500 over three years, an exemption expected to help many community colleges, where the average increase in actual dollars this year was just $95.
Sandy Baum, a Skidmore College economist and senior policy analyst at the College Board, said that there are many types of colleges that would not change behavior because of the watch list. The wealthiest colleges — those seen by some as contributing to an “arms race” in which new programs and fancier facilities multiply — will be able to continue that arms race without getting on the list, she said. And colleges without much money (either private institutions or publics in tight budget cycles) have real constraints on their prices.
There may, however, be a group of private colleges that are in between — not totally tuition dependent, but not with billion-dollar endowments either. Some of those institutions, she said, might be motivated to try to carve a bit out of tuition increases to stay below average on price. But Baum said it was hard to predict.
Ronald G. Ehrenberg, director of the Cornell University Higher Education Research Institute and editor of What’s Happening to Public Higher Education (Praeger, 2006), said the key question for colleges would be whether being on the watch list had an impact on the behavior of potential students. For colleges that have desirable qualities, he doubts that it will.
“If you the student are trying to make a decision to go to X vs.Y, and X is a shamed institution on the list and Y is not, is that going to affect your decision at all, if X promises you more in terms of educational opportunities and potential for earnings and graduate school education. In a way, I don’t think it’s any different from the way continuing raising high tuitions have not kept the number of applications to selective institutions from going up,” Ehrenberg said.
The potential benefit of the watch list may be rhetorical, he added. “If this is just a way of calling attention to higher education about trying to be efficient and hold down costs, maybe it will serve some useful function,” he said.
Just about everybody interviewed for this article — including several who didn’t want to be quoted for fear of attracting attention to their institutions’ rates — said that there are colleges, public and private, charging too much and deserving of more scrutiny. The problem, they said, was that the proposal advancing in Congress appears likely to point fingers in the wrong direction.
Baum said that the proposal reflected the wide consensus that the problem is real. “I’m sympathetic to the idea we have to do something to slow this down,” she said. “I don’t know that anybody has a good answer to what the best approach is.”
— Scott Jaschik
Not too late for spring semester
Last month we launched our "Ask the Expert" tool — and since then, your questions have been steadily rolling in. At first I was surprised by the number of inquiries we received this way. I thought the Student LoanDown community would use the comments section to ask questions — but I guess you take that section literally and use it for actual comments, not questions!
Nonetheless, I'm glad you're finding "Ask the Expert" useful. It's certainly useful for us bloggers because we learn exactly what kind of information you'd like more of — and then we can share it with the rest of our community.
So here's a question we received from a concerned parent about financial aid timing (certainly appropriate as spring semester is just a few months away):
My daughter is a freshman. We did not take out any loans for the first, fall, semester, but would like to take out one for the spring semester. Is it possible to get a Stafford or Perkins loan for the spring semester, or have we missed this cycle and have to wait for the fall of 2008?
And here's my response:
No, you haven't missed the cycle. (Whew!) If you haven't already completed the FAFSA Click here to learn about third-party website links (Free Application for Federal Student Aid), that's your first step. The 2007 FAFSA covers the 2007-2008 academic year through June 30, 2008, and will determine your daughter's eligibility for financial aid.
I'd suggest that you check with the financial aid office at your daughter's school. Low-interest Federal Perkins Loans Click here to learn about third-party website links are based on financial need and are awarded on a first-come, first-served basis, so those may not be available. But low-interest Federal Stafford Loans have both need-based and non-need-based components (subsidized and unsubsidized loans), and as long as your daughter is attending an eligible school at least half-time, this should still be an option for her.
One last thing: As a parent, if you're interested in borrowing to help your daughter pay for school, check out the Federal PLUS Loan for parents. It's also not based on financial need but does require a minimal credit check.
Nonetheless, I'm glad you're finding "Ask the Expert" useful. It's certainly useful for us bloggers because we learn exactly what kind of information you'd like more of — and then we can share it with the rest of our community.
So here's a question we received from a concerned parent about financial aid timing (certainly appropriate as spring semester is just a few months away):
My daughter is a freshman. We did not take out any loans for the first, fall, semester, but would like to take out one for the spring semester. Is it possible to get a Stafford or Perkins loan for the spring semester, or have we missed this cycle and have to wait for the fall of 2008?
And here's my response:
No, you haven't missed the cycle. (Whew!) If you haven't already completed the FAFSA Click here to learn about third-party website links (Free Application for Federal Student Aid), that's your first step. The 2007 FAFSA covers the 2007-2008 academic year through June 30, 2008, and will determine your daughter's eligibility for financial aid.
I'd suggest that you check with the financial aid office at your daughter's school. Low-interest Federal Perkins Loans Click here to learn about third-party website links are based on financial need and are awarded on a first-come, first-served basis, so those may not be available. But low-interest Federal Stafford Loans have both need-based and non-need-based components (subsidized and unsubsidized loans), and as long as your daughter is attending an eligible school at least half-time, this should still be an option for her.
One last thing: As a parent, if you're interested in borrowing to help your daughter pay for school, check out the Federal PLUS Loan for parents. It's also not based on financial need but does require a minimal credit check.
Warning on Tuition, Shift on Accreditation
If the Higher Education Act bill that House Democrats introduced late last week did not persuade college leaders that the issue of college prices is and will remain front and center on the federal policy agenda, the House education committee’s consideration of the legislation Wednesday should once and for all.
Lawmakers on the Education and Labor Committee did not complete their work on the measure (H.R. 4137) Wednesday, though they did pass several amendments and reject or withdraw numerous others (detailed below). But their hours of mostly bipartisan discussion about the legislation included warnings from members of both political parties that colleges will face continuing scrutiny of their spending and tuition prices and could face more federal intrusion into their operations — beyond the creation of federal “watch lists” that the bill in question would create — if they don’t get the problem under control.
Rep. Michael Castle (R-Del.) proposed an amendment that would have required colleges that appear on the “watch lists” to put in place procedures to cut their costs and slash their federal student aid funds by 10 percent a year if they do not meet certain benchmarks. Castle said he believed the committee’s bill would do “very good things” on the cost issue, but suggested that “more may need to be done.”
Castle ultimately withdrew his amendment, as aides said he had been planning to do all along. But the committee’s chairman, Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), said he found Castle’s amendment to be “very tempting,” and acknowledged the Republican lawmaker’s point that “we haven’t done everything potentially available” to Congress to crack down on rising college costs.
Miller then issued a warning directly to college officials: “I hope the [higher education] community is listening closely on this,” he said, adding that the committee’s work on this bill “is not the end of the story.”
The issue of college prices and the need for colleges to rein them was raised on and off throughout the hours of debate, offering a rare bit of cohesion to a discussion that was, like the sprawling 747-page bill under consideration, all over the place. (An accounting of what was contained in the original bill can be found here.)
Perhaps the most significant development, which occurred late Wednesday evening after the hearing room had partially cleared out, involved the contentious topic of how student learning outcomes should be assessed in the accreditation process. The bill proposed by committee Democrats last week would give colleges and universities themselves the authority to define how to measure “success with respect to student achievement in relation to the institution’s mission.” That is in contrast to the Education Department’s push during last winter’s negotiated rule making session on accreditation to put that authority much more in the hands of the accrediting agencies. The original language in the House bill largely mirrored that in the Higher Education Act bill passed by the Senate this summer.
Wednesday evening, Rep. Robert Andrews (D-N.J.) — acting at the urging of regional and national accreditors, who reportedly felt that the bill’s language threatened to undermine their authority — introduced an amendment to strip the language that empowered each college to define student learning for itself. (Language in the Higher Education Act as it stands now is noncommittal about who has that authority.) With virtually no discussion, and a promise to bring forward replacement language in the coming days, Miller and the committee’s other leaders adopted Andrews’s amendment without dissent.
College leaders, who had fought the Education Department’s push, said they were blindsided by the Andrews amendment. They were furious, saying the shift would open the door to federal officials renewing their effort to compel to force colleges to measure and report more quantitative data about their success in educating students. The turnabout revealed anew a rift between accreditors and college leaders that surfaced during the accreditation negotiations.
“I’m shocked at the stupidity of the accreditors in opening up an issue that had been settled in a positive way,” said Becky Timmons, assistant vice president for government relations at the American Council on Education. Matt Owens, assistant director of federal relations at the Association of American Universities, said the change — should it stand — could be a deal breaker. “Removal of the provision seriously jeopardizes our ability to support the bill,” Owens said.
The panel considered several other amendments related to accreditation as well. It adopted one amendment that would require accrediting agencies to “respect” the missions of religiously affiliated institutions, which several civil rights groups opposed because they said it would make it easier for such institutions to discriminate on the basis of race or sexual orientation. It also embraced a proposal, offered by Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.), that would allow the minority party in Congress to appoint some of the new members of the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, the panel that reviews accreditors and that the Higher Education Act renewal bill would reconfigure. (Currently the education secretary appoints all 15 members; the original House bill would give the Senate, the House and the Education Department five appointees each, while Hoekstra’s measure would give the Senate and House six each, with three appointed by each party.)
Rep. Thomas Petri (R-Wisc.) withdrew an amendment that would have allowed colleges, once they had been accredited by a federally recognized agency, to opt out of the re-accreditation process by submitting a slew of information about its performance and fiscal and other health to the federal government. (The Petri amendment was strikingly similar to proposals that have been made by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, whose president, Anne D. Neal, happens to be married to the Congressman and a member of the Education Department’s accreditation advisory committee.) Another withdrawn amendment related to accreditation would have ended a requirement that accrediting agencies get approval from the U.S. Education Department when they seek to begin reviewing distance learning institutions.
In other areas, the House panel adopted amendments that would:
* Bar the Education Department from developing or implementing a federal “unit records” database, which would track information about students from elementary and secondary school through their entry into the work force. Many states have such systems, but private colleges (and many Republican lawmakers) have opposed the development of a national system, mostly on privacy grounds.
* Create a new assistant secretary position in the U.S. Education Department to oversee international education.
* Ease in several ways the requirements of a federal law that forces for-profit colleges to garner at least 10 percent of their revenues from sources other than the federal student aid programs. One change would allow the institutions to count institutional scholarships, or tuition discounts, in the 10 percent total; another would soften the potential penalties violators can face.
* Change how the Education Department calculates the “cohort” default rate for student loans.
Numerous other amendments were rejected or withdrawn by their authors. Some of those amendments would have:
* Required colleges that participate in the federal direct student loan program to process loans for students through banks or other lenders in the guaranteed loan program.
* Expressed the sense of Congress that students should not have their free speech rights infringed by faculty members or fellow students — a watered-down version, essentially, of David Horowitz’s Academic Bill of Rights.
The House panel will reconvene this morning to vote on a handful of amendments and approval of the overall bill.
— Doug Lederman
The original story and user comments can be viewed online at http://insidehighered.com/news/2007/11/15/hea.
Lawmakers on the Education and Labor Committee did not complete their work on the measure (H.R. 4137) Wednesday, though they did pass several amendments and reject or withdraw numerous others (detailed below). But their hours of mostly bipartisan discussion about the legislation included warnings from members of both political parties that colleges will face continuing scrutiny of their spending and tuition prices and could face more federal intrusion into their operations — beyond the creation of federal “watch lists” that the bill in question would create — if they don’t get the problem under control.
Rep. Michael Castle (R-Del.) proposed an amendment that would have required colleges that appear on the “watch lists” to put in place procedures to cut their costs and slash their federal student aid funds by 10 percent a year if they do not meet certain benchmarks. Castle said he believed the committee’s bill would do “very good things” on the cost issue, but suggested that “more may need to be done.”
Castle ultimately withdrew his amendment, as aides said he had been planning to do all along. But the committee’s chairman, Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), said he found Castle’s amendment to be “very tempting,” and acknowledged the Republican lawmaker’s point that “we haven’t done everything potentially available” to Congress to crack down on rising college costs.
Miller then issued a warning directly to college officials: “I hope the [higher education] community is listening closely on this,” he said, adding that the committee’s work on this bill “is not the end of the story.”
The issue of college prices and the need for colleges to rein them was raised on and off throughout the hours of debate, offering a rare bit of cohesion to a discussion that was, like the sprawling 747-page bill under consideration, all over the place. (An accounting of what was contained in the original bill can be found here.)
Perhaps the most significant development, which occurred late Wednesday evening after the hearing room had partially cleared out, involved the contentious topic of how student learning outcomes should be assessed in the accreditation process. The bill proposed by committee Democrats last week would give colleges and universities themselves the authority to define how to measure “success with respect to student achievement in relation to the institution’s mission.” That is in contrast to the Education Department’s push during last winter’s negotiated rule making session on accreditation to put that authority much more in the hands of the accrediting agencies. The original language in the House bill largely mirrored that in the Higher Education Act bill passed by the Senate this summer.
Wednesday evening, Rep. Robert Andrews (D-N.J.) — acting at the urging of regional and national accreditors, who reportedly felt that the bill’s language threatened to undermine their authority — introduced an amendment to strip the language that empowered each college to define student learning for itself. (Language in the Higher Education Act as it stands now is noncommittal about who has that authority.) With virtually no discussion, and a promise to bring forward replacement language in the coming days, Miller and the committee’s other leaders adopted Andrews’s amendment without dissent.
College leaders, who had fought the Education Department’s push, said they were blindsided by the Andrews amendment. They were furious, saying the shift would open the door to federal officials renewing their effort to compel to force colleges to measure and report more quantitative data about their success in educating students. The turnabout revealed anew a rift between accreditors and college leaders that surfaced during the accreditation negotiations.
“I’m shocked at the stupidity of the accreditors in opening up an issue that had been settled in a positive way,” said Becky Timmons, assistant vice president for government relations at the American Council on Education. Matt Owens, assistant director of federal relations at the Association of American Universities, said the change — should it stand — could be a deal breaker. “Removal of the provision seriously jeopardizes our ability to support the bill,” Owens said.
The panel considered several other amendments related to accreditation as well. It adopted one amendment that would require accrediting agencies to “respect” the missions of religiously affiliated institutions, which several civil rights groups opposed because they said it would make it easier for such institutions to discriminate on the basis of race or sexual orientation. It also embraced a proposal, offered by Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.), that would allow the minority party in Congress to appoint some of the new members of the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, the panel that reviews accreditors and that the Higher Education Act renewal bill would reconfigure. (Currently the education secretary appoints all 15 members; the original House bill would give the Senate, the House and the Education Department five appointees each, while Hoekstra’s measure would give the Senate and House six each, with three appointed by each party.)
Rep. Thomas Petri (R-Wisc.) withdrew an amendment that would have allowed colleges, once they had been accredited by a federally recognized agency, to opt out of the re-accreditation process by submitting a slew of information about its performance and fiscal and other health to the federal government. (The Petri amendment was strikingly similar to proposals that have been made by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, whose president, Anne D. Neal, happens to be married to the Congressman and a member of the Education Department’s accreditation advisory committee.) Another withdrawn amendment related to accreditation would have ended a requirement that accrediting agencies get approval from the U.S. Education Department when they seek to begin reviewing distance learning institutions.
In other areas, the House panel adopted amendments that would:
* Bar the Education Department from developing or implementing a federal “unit records” database, which would track information about students from elementary and secondary school through their entry into the work force. Many states have such systems, but private colleges (and many Republican lawmakers) have opposed the development of a national system, mostly on privacy grounds.
* Create a new assistant secretary position in the U.S. Education Department to oversee international education.
* Ease in several ways the requirements of a federal law that forces for-profit colleges to garner at least 10 percent of their revenues from sources other than the federal student aid programs. One change would allow the institutions to count institutional scholarships, or tuition discounts, in the 10 percent total; another would soften the potential penalties violators can face.
* Change how the Education Department calculates the “cohort” default rate for student loans.
Numerous other amendments were rejected or withdrawn by their authors. Some of those amendments would have:
* Required colleges that participate in the federal direct student loan program to process loans for students through banks or other lenders in the guaranteed loan program.
* Expressed the sense of Congress that students should not have their free speech rights infringed by faculty members or fellow students — a watered-down version, essentially, of David Horowitz’s Academic Bill of Rights.
The House panel will reconvene this morning to vote on a handful of amendments and approval of the overall bill.
— Doug Lederman
The original story and user comments can be viewed online at http://insidehighered.com/news/2007/11/15/hea.
Determining EFC and Cost of Attendance
What is Cost of Attendance?
Your college or university will generally publish on its Web site or in its financial aid office the college's cost of attendance. This is an estimate of how much money will be required to attend school for one year at that college, including all reasonable expenses. Most people, when budgeting for college, look at the tuition and assume that tuition is more or less the "price tag" for that school, when the reality is that tuition may be as little as 50% of the overall budget. Here are some sample costs of attendance from a survey done by TheStreet.com:
* Prestige school (Ivy League or near-Ivy League):
o Tuition, $31,644;
o Room/board, $9,873;
o Books & supplies, $1,419;
o Plus similar costs for personal expenses and transportation.
o Total cost: an estimated $44,592 per year.
* Private four year university/school:
o Tuition, $16,086;
o Room/board, $6,540;
o Books & supplies, $920;
o Plus costs for personal expenses and transportation.
o Total cost: an estimated $26,226 per year.
* State university/Public school:
o Tuition, $8,670;
o Room/board $7,176;
o Books/supplies $950;
o Plus expenses and transportation.
o Total cost: an estimated $18,452 per year.
Incidentally, the fact that state and public universities are broken out into a separate category is an indication of price range, not quality. Some public universities are as well regarded or even more prestigious than their private university counterparts.
How does Cost of Attendance influence financial aid?
A school's financial aid office generally determines the programs and amounts of aid an applicant receives. This involves determining the cost of attending the college, calculating a student's Expected Family Contribution (EFC), and then awarding aid to meet the difference between the two - the calculated financial need.
What is the EFC?
The Expected Family Contribution (EFC) is the amount a family can be expected to contribute toward a student’s college costs. Financial aid administrators determine an applicant’s need for federal student aid from the U.S. Department of Education and other non-federal sources of assistance by subtracting the EFC from the student’s cost of attendance (COA).
The EFC formula is used to determine the EFC and ultimately determine the need for assistance from the following types of federal student financial assistance: Federal Pell Grants, subsidized Stafford Loans (though the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan [DL] Program or through the Federal Family Education Loan Program [FFEL]), and assistance from the “campus-based” programs—Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants (FSEOG), Federal Perkins Loans, and Federal Work-Study (FWS).
The methodology for determining the EFC is found in Part F of Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA).
Financial aid administrators use the information from the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), including the EFC, to develop a financial aid package. This package specifies the types and amounts of assistance, including non-federal aid, a student will receive to cover his or her education-related expenses up to COA. However, because funds are limited, the amount awarded to a student may fall short of the amount of aid for which the student is eligible
What is the source of data used in EFC calculations?
All data used to calculate a student’s EFC come from the information the student provides on the FAFSA. A student may submit a FAFSA (1) through the Internet by using FAFSA on the Web, (2) by filing an application electronically through a school, or (3) by mailing a paper FAFSA to the Central Processing System (CPS).
Students who applied for federal student aid in the previous award year may be eligible to reapply by filing a Renewal FAFSA over the Internet or by submitting a paper renewal application. Applying for federal aid is free. However, to be considered for non-federal aid (such as institutional aid), a student may have to fill out additional forms and pay a processing fee.
We encourage applicants to complete the appropriate electronic version of the FAFSA rather than a paper FAFSA because the electronic versions contain additional instructions and help features, have built-in edits that reduce applicant error, and allow the Department to send application results to students and schools quicker.
What happens if awarded aid falls short of Cost of Attendance?
Then it's student loan time - alternative student loans, to be specific. Alternative private student loans bridge the gap between awarded aid and Cost of Attendance. For example, let's look at the Prestige School's Cost of Attendance again and some financial aid. Let's say that you are awarded the maximum amount of federal aid for Pell Grants, Perkins Loans, and Stafford Loans as a freshman. That means:
* Perkins Loan - maximum of $4,000
* Stafford Loan - maximum of $6,625 ($2,625 subsidized)
* FSEOG - maximum of $4,000
* Pell Grant - maximum of $4,050
That puts your federal financial aid package at $18,675. Let's also assume that you receive $2,000 in scholarships and an additional $5,000 in state and institutional financial aid. That puts your aid package at $25,675, which will almost cover tuition. You'll still have about $2,955 in tuition to cover, plus the remaining expenses, which totals $20,680.
Where can you get $20,680? From an alternative private student loan like the Act Private Student Loan from the Student Loan Network. It can give you up to $40,000 per academic year, which will finish off the costs of attending more expensive schools.
Your college or university will generally publish on its Web site or in its financial aid office the college's cost of attendance. This is an estimate of how much money will be required to attend school for one year at that college, including all reasonable expenses. Most people, when budgeting for college, look at the tuition and assume that tuition is more or less the "price tag" for that school, when the reality is that tuition may be as little as 50% of the overall budget. Here are some sample costs of attendance from a survey done by TheStreet.com:
* Prestige school (Ivy League or near-Ivy League):
o Tuition, $31,644;
o Room/board, $9,873;
o Books & supplies, $1,419;
o Plus similar costs for personal expenses and transportation.
o Total cost: an estimated $44,592 per year.
* Private four year university/school:
o Tuition, $16,086;
o Room/board, $6,540;
o Books & supplies, $920;
o Plus costs for personal expenses and transportation.
o Total cost: an estimated $26,226 per year.
* State university/Public school:
o Tuition, $8,670;
o Room/board $7,176;
o Books/supplies $950;
o Plus expenses and transportation.
o Total cost: an estimated $18,452 per year.
Incidentally, the fact that state and public universities are broken out into a separate category is an indication of price range, not quality. Some public universities are as well regarded or even more prestigious than their private university counterparts.
How does Cost of Attendance influence financial aid?
A school's financial aid office generally determines the programs and amounts of aid an applicant receives. This involves determining the cost of attending the college, calculating a student's Expected Family Contribution (EFC), and then awarding aid to meet the difference between the two - the calculated financial need.
What is the EFC?
The Expected Family Contribution (EFC) is the amount a family can be expected to contribute toward a student’s college costs. Financial aid administrators determine an applicant’s need for federal student aid from the U.S. Department of Education and other non-federal sources of assistance by subtracting the EFC from the student’s cost of attendance (COA).
The EFC formula is used to determine the EFC and ultimately determine the need for assistance from the following types of federal student financial assistance: Federal Pell Grants, subsidized Stafford Loans (though the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan [DL] Program or through the Federal Family Education Loan Program [FFEL]), and assistance from the “campus-based” programs—Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants (FSEOG), Federal Perkins Loans, and Federal Work-Study (FWS).
The methodology for determining the EFC is found in Part F of Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA).
Financial aid administrators use the information from the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), including the EFC, to develop a financial aid package. This package specifies the types and amounts of assistance, including non-federal aid, a student will receive to cover his or her education-related expenses up to COA. However, because funds are limited, the amount awarded to a student may fall short of the amount of aid for which the student is eligible
What is the source of data used in EFC calculations?
All data used to calculate a student’s EFC come from the information the student provides on the FAFSA. A student may submit a FAFSA (1) through the Internet by using FAFSA on the Web, (2) by filing an application electronically through a school, or (3) by mailing a paper FAFSA to the Central Processing System (CPS).
Students who applied for federal student aid in the previous award year may be eligible to reapply by filing a Renewal FAFSA over the Internet or by submitting a paper renewal application. Applying for federal aid is free. However, to be considered for non-federal aid (such as institutional aid), a student may have to fill out additional forms and pay a processing fee.
We encourage applicants to complete the appropriate electronic version of the FAFSA rather than a paper FAFSA because the electronic versions contain additional instructions and help features, have built-in edits that reduce applicant error, and allow the Department to send application results to students and schools quicker.
What happens if awarded aid falls short of Cost of Attendance?
Then it's student loan time - alternative student loans, to be specific. Alternative private student loans bridge the gap between awarded aid and Cost of Attendance. For example, let's look at the Prestige School's Cost of Attendance again and some financial aid. Let's say that you are awarded the maximum amount of federal aid for Pell Grants, Perkins Loans, and Stafford Loans as a freshman. That means:
* Perkins Loan - maximum of $4,000
* Stafford Loan - maximum of $6,625 ($2,625 subsidized)
* FSEOG - maximum of $4,000
* Pell Grant - maximum of $4,050
That puts your federal financial aid package at $18,675. Let's also assume that you receive $2,000 in scholarships and an additional $5,000 in state and institutional financial aid. That puts your aid package at $25,675, which will almost cover tuition. You'll still have about $2,955 in tuition to cover, plus the remaining expenses, which totals $20,680.
Where can you get $20,680? From an alternative private student loan like the Act Private Student Loan from the Student Loan Network. It can give you up to $40,000 per academic year, which will finish off the costs of attending more expensive schools.
11/18/2007
Student Loan Consolidation Information - Differences Between Graduate & Undergraduate Financial Aid
At the time of researching your student loan consolidation information options you need to investigate the similarities and differences of graduate and undergraduate financial aid, as the costs of education today is ten times what it was less than 40 years ago and with the differences becoming even more stark when considering undergraduate versus graduate programs, as luck would have it there are resources now available to both types of student to assist them to pay for college expenses.
Undergraduate student loan consolidation information.
Undergraduates typically rely on a difficult mix of scholarships, grants and loans, these loans can sometimes be taken out by the undergraduates alone or by his or her parents alone and often a mixture of the two when the parent(s) start to become a co-borrower or co-signer, the basic schemes for students remain the unsubsidized and subsidized Stafford Loans, subsidized loans are more appealing, since the government pays the interest whilst the student is in school, however they're need-based, unsubsidized loans are not need-based making them available to a much larger range of students.
Graduate student loan consolidation information.
Graduates on another hand, often have fewer options for scholarships and grants just when tuition fees rise, however teaching and/or research assistantships very commonly make up the shortfall, however these positions in effect have very low pay rates and very long hours with the student having to attend courses and doing search for their assistantship.
In recent times a new option has become available to graduate students, the PLUS loans though the acronym stands for (Parent Loans for Undergraduate Students), they're now a means for a range of grad students, in the undergraduate situation parents are the borrowers and are responsible for the re-payment, in the case of grad students he or she become the responsible person.
PLUS loans have ample advantages.
Initially, they are available, since they are based on credit quality, not need-based a large proportion of borrowers are able to qualify, comparatively few grad students have had the time to get into the credit binds that working adults in many instances fall into and as a consequence he or she will usually have fewer bad marks on their credit report, this makes the decision easier for the college financial aid officials, who evaluate eligibility, however existing interest rates for PLUS loans aren't low by historical measures, rates are either 7.9% or 8.5% depending on the specific type of loan, even at the reduced rate on $10,000.00 borrowed the initially years interest total is over $750.00 and re-payments are required within 60 days of when the money is disbursed with no grace period.
Total amounts on undergraduate and graduate loans and for all non-private loans differ as well, even the maximum total amount over the lifetime of the program varies between undergraduates and graduates.
Both types of students will want to researching all available alternatives, nonetheless keep mindful that though it ordinarily requires combinations of funds from considerable sources, cash to pay for school is now more easily available than ever, the total amount of funds borrowed last calendar year by all students was over $50 billion, those funds are going to someone and without too much difficulty it could easily be you, if you keep this information in mind when looking at any student loan consolidation information.
Undergraduate student loan consolidation information.
Undergraduates typically rely on a difficult mix of scholarships, grants and loans, these loans can sometimes be taken out by the undergraduates alone or by his or her parents alone and often a mixture of the two when the parent(s) start to become a co-borrower or co-signer, the basic schemes for students remain the unsubsidized and subsidized Stafford Loans, subsidized loans are more appealing, since the government pays the interest whilst the student is in school, however they're need-based, unsubsidized loans are not need-based making them available to a much larger range of students.
Graduate student loan consolidation information.
Graduates on another hand, often have fewer options for scholarships and grants just when tuition fees rise, however teaching and/or research assistantships very commonly make up the shortfall, however these positions in effect have very low pay rates and very long hours with the student having to attend courses and doing search for their assistantship.
In recent times a new option has become available to graduate students, the PLUS loans though the acronym stands for (Parent Loans for Undergraduate Students), they're now a means for a range of grad students, in the undergraduate situation parents are the borrowers and are responsible for the re-payment, in the case of grad students he or she become the responsible person.
PLUS loans have ample advantages.
Initially, they are available, since they are based on credit quality, not need-based a large proportion of borrowers are able to qualify, comparatively few grad students have had the time to get into the credit binds that working adults in many instances fall into and as a consequence he or she will usually have fewer bad marks on their credit report, this makes the decision easier for the college financial aid officials, who evaluate eligibility, however existing interest rates for PLUS loans aren't low by historical measures, rates are either 7.9% or 8.5% depending on the specific type of loan, even at the reduced rate on $10,000.00 borrowed the initially years interest total is over $750.00 and re-payments are required within 60 days of when the money is disbursed with no grace period.
Total amounts on undergraduate and graduate loans and for all non-private loans differ as well, even the maximum total amount over the lifetime of the program varies between undergraduates and graduates.
Both types of students will want to researching all available alternatives, nonetheless keep mindful that though it ordinarily requires combinations of funds from considerable sources, cash to pay for school is now more easily available than ever, the total amount of funds borrowed last calendar year by all students was over $50 billion, those funds are going to someone and without too much difficulty it could easily be you, if you keep this information in mind when looking at any student loan consolidation information.
11/15/2007
Student Loan in Florida
Student Loan Consolidation authorizes you to merge all your existing student or parent loans into one new loan from a single lender, using this new loan lender to pay off the dues on the other loans received from financial institutions or from the federal government.
Federal Stafford Loans
Federal Stafford loans are loans which have fixed-rate and low interest. These loans are available to those undergraduate students who are studying in accredited schools. Stafford loans are also the most common source of college loan funding. These loans are of two types. First is the subsidized federal Stafford loan. It is only given on the basis of financial need which is determined by the FAFSA
Decrease your monthly student loan payments in half.
If you’re a student its time to consolidate your outstanding student loan. Student loan consolidation helps you lock in a lower interest rate and it also has many incentive features.
Student Loan Sir is a free portal for students who tries to consolidate their loans or resolve their credit problems. Student Loan Dir is not a lender. our objective it to give students loans with the lowest rates possible. How do we do it? We submit your request to several lenders at the time and allowing them to compete for the best possible rate.
Federal Stafford Loans
Federal Stafford loans are loans which have fixed-rate and low interest. These loans are available to those undergraduate students who are studying in accredited schools. Stafford loans are also the most common source of college loan funding. These loans are of two types. First is the subsidized federal Stafford loan. It is only given on the basis of financial need which is determined by the FAFSA
Decrease your monthly student loan payments in half.
If you’re a student its time to consolidate your outstanding student loan. Student loan consolidation helps you lock in a lower interest rate and it also has many incentive features.
Student Loan Sir is a free portal for students who tries to consolidate their loans or resolve their credit problems. Student Loan Dir is not a lender. our objective it to give students loans with the lowest rates possible. How do we do it? We submit your request to several lenders at the time and allowing them to compete for the best possible rate.
Student Loan Repayment Begins
That’s right - you can’t hide from it anymore. If you graduated this past spring, the chances are your grace period is over and you have to start paying back your student loans. This is not the end of the world for you, just the beginning of a long relationship with your loan servicer. (Technically, the relationship started 4 years ago…but who’s counting)
You have some options. First and foremost, examine your monthly budget, and include your new student loan payments. If you can afford to make the payments, don’t defer or put your loans into forbearance just to save money. When you put your loans into forbearance or deferment, interest will continue to collect on your none-subsidized federal loans, which gets capitalized once you go back into repayment. This basically means that your total payback amount will increase. Not to mention, deferment and forbearance are intended to be used during financial hardships. If you use them up now when you can afford to pay, you won’t have them in the future when you may actually need them.
Still, you can afford the monthly payments, but now you have much less cash lying around. Consider consolidation - you can cut your monthly payment nearly in half. And, there is no penalty for extra or early repayment. So, when you claw your way to the top of the corporate ladder, and land that high paying fluff job, you can payback your remaining loan balance without being penalized.
Finally, don’t forget to consolidate your private student loans. They’re probably going into repayment right about now as well. And if you have a lot of private student loans like me, then consolidating those will also help that monthly budget stay fit. Just like federal consolidation, private consolidation will combine all of your private student debt and lower your monthly payment, without any penalties for extra or early repayment.
You have some options. First and foremost, examine your monthly budget, and include your new student loan payments. If you can afford to make the payments, don’t defer or put your loans into forbearance just to save money. When you put your loans into forbearance or deferment, interest will continue to collect on your none-subsidized federal loans, which gets capitalized once you go back into repayment. This basically means that your total payback amount will increase. Not to mention, deferment and forbearance are intended to be used during financial hardships. If you use them up now when you can afford to pay, you won’t have them in the future when you may actually need them.
Still, you can afford the monthly payments, but now you have much less cash lying around. Consider consolidation - you can cut your monthly payment nearly in half. And, there is no penalty for extra or early repayment. So, when you claw your way to the top of the corporate ladder, and land that high paying fluff job, you can payback your remaining loan balance without being penalized.
Finally, don’t forget to consolidate your private student loans. They’re probably going into repayment right about now as well. And if you have a lot of private student loans like me, then consolidating those will also help that monthly budget stay fit. Just like federal consolidation, private consolidation will combine all of your private student debt and lower your monthly payment, without any penalties for extra or early repayment.
11/14/2007
more on private student loan consolidation
More on Private Student Loan consolidation and possible hidden fees. (continued) by Kara Lilly
Do Your Homework. Do your research. Compare, compare compare.
It’s better to take your time. And don’t feel you’re alone if it seems like too much to deal with. If you are compelled to consider a low interest student loans consolidation offer that you’ve seen advertised, it is vitally important that you do your homework. You really need to research and analyze all aspects of the low interest private student loan consolidation itself. This should include considering all documentation presented by the lender — but also independent resources of information that you will be able to find both on the Internet and World Wide Web and in the brick and mortar world.
Double Check All Provisions in a Low Interest Debt Consolidation Loan Agreement
When it comes to a low interest Private School Loans Consolidation agreement, you really do have to read everything in the agreement … everything. Provisions regarding costs, fees and charges can be hidden away in the most unlikely of places within a low interest debt consolidation loan agreement.
In the end, by following the suggestions and pointers outlined in this two part article, you will be able to make intelligent and educated decisions pertaining to a low interest private student loan consolidation. And it goes without saying thaqt you should stop by your college financial aid office to speak with one of your school’s loan counselors before making a final decision.
Do Your Homework. Do your research. Compare, compare compare.
It’s better to take your time. And don’t feel you’re alone if it seems like too much to deal with. If you are compelled to consider a low interest student loans consolidation offer that you’ve seen advertised, it is vitally important that you do your homework. You really need to research and analyze all aspects of the low interest private student loan consolidation itself. This should include considering all documentation presented by the lender — but also independent resources of information that you will be able to find both on the Internet and World Wide Web and in the brick and mortar world.
Double Check All Provisions in a Low Interest Debt Consolidation Loan Agreement
When it comes to a low interest Private School Loans Consolidation agreement, you really do have to read everything in the agreement … everything. Provisions regarding costs, fees and charges can be hidden away in the most unlikely of places within a low interest debt consolidation loan agreement.
In the end, by following the suggestions and pointers outlined in this two part article, you will be able to make intelligent and educated decisions pertaining to a low interest private student loan consolidation. And it goes without saying thaqt you should stop by your college financial aid office to speak with one of your school’s loan counselors before making a final decision.
Private Loan Consolidation : Hidden Charges
Applying for an Advertised Low Interest Private Student Loan Consolidation:
Beware of “Hidden” Costs, Fees and Charges
By Kara Lilly
Debts. Mounting Debts. Debts Out of Control. Flashing across the recesses of your own mind with regularity may be these phrases. If you are like many people in the world today, you are confronting — or trying to confront as best you can — ever mounting debt. In point of fact, you may be trying to get control over growing debt before it becomes a serious problem and before it really starts to have a negative impact on your overall credit history and credit score. One of the major debt problems that you may be having is with your private student loans.
With this in mind, one solution that you should include in your overall debt management mix and plan should be applying for private student loan consolidation, including low interest debt consolidation loan. Provided you make application for a low interest debt consolidation loan while your credit score is still in a fairly sound position, you will have a number of options available to you. However, you will need to keep in mind that oftentimes there are “hidden” fees, costs and charges that are associated with a low interest debt consolidation loan which you may have seen advertised.
The Element of Buyer Beware
When it comes to considering an advertisement for a low interest private student loan consolidation, you really do need to keep in mind the age old phrase of caveat emptor — buyer beware. With very few exceptions, a lender that is promoting a low interest debt consolidation loan through advertisements will not be fully open about all of the costs associated with that loan option. Rather, the lower interest rate necessarily (and naturally) will be prominently promoted. At best, in some very fine and nearly (if not completely) illegible print tucked away in the bottom corner of the ad will be some general information about the existence of other fees, charges and costs associated with the loan.
You need to keep in mind that no matter how closely you scrutinize the advertisement, the advertisement is not an appropriate source for you to obtain information about a low interest student consolidation loan. Speaking with the financial aid office at your school, compare on the internet and do your homework. You’ll end up with a better deal.impose a code of conduct upon educational institutions in regards to their dealings with their student body and lenders.
The house and the Congress have different versions of the bill so even though quick approval is expected in the House it may take some time to get both versions of the reform bill condensed and presentable.
At any rate student loan and student loan consolidation reform is desperately needed and I can't find anything wrong with this bill as of yet...looks like a move in the right direction.
Beware of “Hidden” Costs, Fees and Charges
By Kara Lilly
Debts. Mounting Debts. Debts Out of Control. Flashing across the recesses of your own mind with regularity may be these phrases. If you are like many people in the world today, you are confronting — or trying to confront as best you can — ever mounting debt. In point of fact, you may be trying to get control over growing debt before it becomes a serious problem and before it really starts to have a negative impact on your overall credit history and credit score. One of the major debt problems that you may be having is with your private student loans.
With this in mind, one solution that you should include in your overall debt management mix and plan should be applying for private student loan consolidation, including low interest debt consolidation loan. Provided you make application for a low interest debt consolidation loan while your credit score is still in a fairly sound position, you will have a number of options available to you. However, you will need to keep in mind that oftentimes there are “hidden” fees, costs and charges that are associated with a low interest debt consolidation loan which you may have seen advertised.
The Element of Buyer Beware
When it comes to considering an advertisement for a low interest private student loan consolidation, you really do need to keep in mind the age old phrase of caveat emptor — buyer beware. With very few exceptions, a lender that is promoting a low interest debt consolidation loan through advertisements will not be fully open about all of the costs associated with that loan option. Rather, the lower interest rate necessarily (and naturally) will be prominently promoted. At best, in some very fine and nearly (if not completely) illegible print tucked away in the bottom corner of the ad will be some general information about the existence of other fees, charges and costs associated with the loan.
You need to keep in mind that no matter how closely you scrutinize the advertisement, the advertisement is not an appropriate source for you to obtain information about a low interest student consolidation loan. Speaking with the financial aid office at your school, compare on the internet and do your homework. You’ll end up with a better deal.impose a code of conduct upon educational institutions in regards to their dealings with their student body and lenders.
The house and the Congress have different versions of the bill so even though quick approval is expected in the House it may take some time to get both versions of the reform bill condensed and presentable.
At any rate student loan and student loan consolidation reform is desperately needed and I can't find anything wrong with this bill as of yet...looks like a move in the right direction.
More Student Loan & Consolidation Reform
The bill is aimed at deterring the kinds of student loan scandals we have seen in recent years, most of which involved alumni or college administrators getting kickbacks from lenders. Reuters and other sources say the bill is expected to win easy approval.
The new student loan reform bill would impose a code of conduct upon educational institutions in regards to their dealings with their student body and lenders.
The house and the Congress have different versions of the bill so even though quick approval is expected in the House it may take some time to get both versions of the reform bill condensed and presentable.
At any rate student loan and student loan consolidation reform is desperately needed and I can't find anything wrong with this bill as of yet...looks like a move in the right direction.
The new student loan reform bill would impose a code of conduct upon educational institutions in regards to their dealings with their student body and lenders.
The house and the Congress have different versions of the bill so even though quick approval is expected in the House it may take some time to get both versions of the reform bill condensed and presentable.
At any rate student loan and student loan consolidation reform is desperately needed and I can't find anything wrong with this bill as of yet...looks like a move in the right direction.
Lawmakers introduce Higher Education Act reauthorization bill
According to NCHelp.org, House Education and Labor Chairman George Miller (D-CA) and Representative Rubén Hinojosa (D-TX) introduced H.R. 4137 which is a five-year reauthorization bill for the Higher Education Act (HEA). The bill contains many provisions, including:
* Expand college access for low-income and minority students by increasing the maximum Pell Grant award to $9,000, allowing students to receive year-round Pell Grant scholarships, and strengthening college readiness and early awareness programs.
* Increase college aid and support programs for veterans and military families.
* Streamline the federal student financial aid application to make it easier for all eligible students to access financial aid.
o Create two-page EZ FAFSA form for students who qualify for simplified needs and auto-zero-EFC;
o Reduce the number of data elements on the FAFSA by a half;
o Require Education Department to work with the IRS to get income information for the FAFSA in order to simplify process.
* Require greatly increased reporting on how colleges spend their money and create “Higher Education Price Increase Watch Lists” of institutions that increase their tuitions above the average for their peer institutions.
* Make textbook costs more manageable for students.
* Give the Department of Education increased authority to regulate private student loans, increase loan disclosure requirements and increase requirements for lenders and institutions participating in preferred lender arrangements.
o Require schools using preferred lender lists to inform students and parents why they choose each lender on the list and their right to choose lenders no included on the list
o Federal student loan preferred lender lists would need to consist of three unaffiliated lenders and private lender lists would need to consist of two unaffiliated lenders.
* Require lenders, secondary markets, holders or guaranty agencies to provide free of charge and in a timely and effective manner, any student loan information pertaining to federal loans by an institution of higher education for a borrower who had previously attended the institution or by any third-party servicer working on behalf of that institution to prevent student loan defaults
* Call for a study of the feasibility of developing a National Electronic Student Loan Marketplace for federal and private loans.
* Increase Perkins Loan limits from $4,000 to $5,000 for undergraduates and $6,000 to $8,000 for graduate students.
* Provide public service loan forgiveness for service in areas of national need including: early childhood educators; nurses; foreign language specialists; librarians; child welfare workers; and speech-language pathologists.
Please visit NCHelp.org’s PDF file about this to get more details.
* Expand college access for low-income and minority students by increasing the maximum Pell Grant award to $9,000, allowing students to receive year-round Pell Grant scholarships, and strengthening college readiness and early awareness programs.
* Increase college aid and support programs for veterans and military families.
* Streamline the federal student financial aid application to make it easier for all eligible students to access financial aid.
o Create two-page EZ FAFSA form for students who qualify for simplified needs and auto-zero-EFC;
o Reduce the number of data elements on the FAFSA by a half;
o Require Education Department to work with the IRS to get income information for the FAFSA in order to simplify process.
* Require greatly increased reporting on how colleges spend their money and create “Higher Education Price Increase Watch Lists” of institutions that increase their tuitions above the average for their peer institutions.
* Make textbook costs more manageable for students.
* Give the Department of Education increased authority to regulate private student loans, increase loan disclosure requirements and increase requirements for lenders and institutions participating in preferred lender arrangements.
o Require schools using preferred lender lists to inform students and parents why they choose each lender on the list and their right to choose lenders no included on the list
o Federal student loan preferred lender lists would need to consist of three unaffiliated lenders and private lender lists would need to consist of two unaffiliated lenders.
* Require lenders, secondary markets, holders or guaranty agencies to provide free of charge and in a timely and effective manner, any student loan information pertaining to federal loans by an institution of higher education for a borrower who had previously attended the institution or by any third-party servicer working on behalf of that institution to prevent student loan defaults
* Call for a study of the feasibility of developing a National Electronic Student Loan Marketplace for federal and private loans.
* Increase Perkins Loan limits from $4,000 to $5,000 for undergraduates and $6,000 to $8,000 for graduate students.
* Provide public service loan forgiveness for service in areas of national need including: early childhood educators; nurses; foreign language specialists; librarians; child welfare workers; and speech-language pathologists.
Please visit NCHelp.org’s PDF file about this to get more details.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)