A record number of students are heading to college, which means for the majority of them, student loans. According to Steven Bird of the New America Foundation, a nonpartisan think tank, tuition has gone up much faster than middle income, making the need to borrow much greater.
Upon acceptance to a university, students turn to the financial aid office seeking guidance for loans. Up until this past week, this was thought to be the safest and best way to find a lender.
Three university financial aid directors as well as a senior official at the Federal Education Department are being investigated for conflict of interest. David Charlow, University of Columbia, Laurence Burt, University of Texas, Catherine Thomas, University of Southern California and Matteo Fontana, general manager in the Office of Federal Student Aid, were all shareholders in the lending company Student Loan Express. All bought shares at about $1 a share only to turn them around to sell at about $10 a share. Nice profit. Charlow earned more than $100,000 from the sale of his shares.
Each of the directors being investigated had placed Student Loan Express on their “preferred lender” list, a coveted spot for any lender in the student loan business, which amounts to over $50 billion annually. They were then in a position as a financial aid director to recommend Student Loan Express to students at the same time lining their own pockets. Pretty sweet deal.
Libby Lewis of NPR talked about the history of student loans on Weekend Edition Saturday.
"Forty years ago when government loans originated, the idea was for poor students to get grants and middle -income students would get loans. Many banks did not want to get into the student loan program because students are not credit worthy. By the 1990’s the government had sweetened the deal to give almost 100% coverage on guaranteed student loans. The lender bears virtually no loss.
Aides for the first President Bush did a study on student loans. These studies showed that when the middleman was taken out of the picture and the government lends directly to the student, taxpayers save.
That administration did nothing, but Bill Clinton loved the idea, and made it a hallmark of his presidential bid. But the G.O.P. hated the idea. They liked the idea of private lenders."
Of course they liked the idea of private lenders. They saw a chance to make millions, putting financial burden on low and middle- income students. Prior to government student loans, universities were the bastions of the wealthy. Is the thinking here that if we can’t keep the middle and lower income students out, we will put them in heavy financial debt? Where is the “moral” in the so-called moral majority here?
More information was forthcoming today in the New York Times from the office of Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo of New York, who along with the New America Foundation began the probe into the lending companies. According to today’s report, financial aid officers at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Capella University, an online for-profit institution, had served as paid consultants to Student Loan Express, the loan company in question. The company also paid for part of the graduate school tuition for Ellen Frishberg, the John Hopkins official.
At Widener University in Pennsylvania, the lending company sent executives to conferences held by a firm run by the dean of financial aid. SLX paid $80,000 to the firm. (NY Times 4/10/07)
So, now what happens? All the financial aid officers, the senior official at the federal Education Department as well as the three executives at Student Loan Express have all been put on paid leave. Subpoenas have been issued for more information from all involved, and it’s likely the investigation will widen. But then what? Can charges be filed? And what about the students who are the victims and ultimately bear the burden of higher loan rates? The ones who can least afford the added financial burden.
I recently spoke with Sean McMorris, a student at Columbia University and Policy Writer for the Student Council. I asked him how this scandal affected the students on campus.
“Students don’t have time to fight these battles with the university. We have a general sense of the way things work and we know that we are being taken advantage of by the university in many instances, but we simply don’t have the time to pursue it and to do the research needed to make a change in the system.
We are paying so much money that we must focus on our schooling and getting done as fast as we can. That is exactly what the university knows we will do, so they tend not to think twice about certain issues involving a student going into debt – what’s a couple more grand tacked onto $200,000 at the end of the day?
So, although we know we are being taken advantage of, we simply can’t do anything about it. And, when we are gone, we don’t care anymore because it doesn’t affect us any longer. “
Apparently that’s exactly what the universities and lending companies were counting on. Students don’t have the time nor the ability to delve into different lending options, trusting the university to guide them. Unfortunately, at these universities, that trust was misguided.
Perhaps it’s time to take student government loans out of the hands of greedy lenders and back into the hands of the government where they originated, therefore saving well needed money for both taxpayers and students.
Cheri Cabot, Politics Correspondent
Cheri’s column, “Personal About Politics”, published every Tuesday, will reflect on how the life of a 57 year-old, middle class woman is affected by politics, policy and the current state of the nation - a look at the personal aspects of politics. The articles will be posted to Politics.gather.com as part of Gather Essentials.
Cheri is a single teacher and writer, living in Southern California. She has two grown children, one in Iowa and one at Columbia University, and is the proud grandmother of two. Cheri is also a purveyor of fine coffee, warm chatter and dry wit.
You can find all of Cheri’s columns on Personal About Politics at www.ccabot.gather.com. Keep up with Cheri’s other postings and Gather activity by joining her Gather network at www.ccabot.gather.com, and select the orange “Connect” button on the left-hand side of the page.
You’ll find Cheri and other Politics Correspondents, plus celebrity content and plenty of other Politics experts at Politics.gather.com


Comments: 27
I think student are getting screwed by tuition costs. I don't think it is funding from government I think the problem lies with the institutions themselves...
You are correct that the institutions are also to blame, but if the opportunity in the form of a bribe weren't there to begin with they wouldn't have the temptation to be amoral. Try thinking things over before you speak next time. By the way, how much debt do you have because of university?
Statement by the President
I am delighted that the Senate today passed the Higher Education Amendments of 1998. This legislation marks an important step forward in my effort to help more Americans enter the doors of college. In today's global economy, what you earn depends on what you learn. This bill will make it easier for millions of Americans to get the higher education they need to succeed in the global economy. It also demonstrates how we can make progress on education policy when we choose bipartisan cooperation over division.
.....anyways.... all I am doing is highlighting the BIAS from Cheri and her left wing fans :)
My wife is a professor and I must respond to Jeff's comment about the idea of them "...barely ever work". Absolutely ridiculous! She is doing homework every evening and weekend. She spends many days before and after each session finishing up, preparing for the next semester, etc. True, she is special and not all work this hard. She teaches at a community college as do thousands across the country and does not make a large income.
Our daughter is now in her 11th year of full time college preparing to become a professor. There is no doubt she will be a great one too and will always work hard for what she makes.
I realize this is a side issue but I want to correct this possible misconception about college professors. Whenever stereotypes are made, they are most often wrong.
"'So, although we know we are being taken advantage of, we simply can't do anything about it. And, when we are gone, we don't care anymore because it doesn't affect us any longer.'" - That about sums it all up, doesn't it? I just hope that some of the students find time to make something happen from this and that some of the people who feel it no longer affects them take steps to help those who are to follow them.
http://www.villagevoice.com/arts/0715,kamenetz,76311,12.html
And, this is even more exciting....New York Times interviewed him today!
He is using his knowledge about the subject and his voice!
The conflicts of interest and money grubbing collusion that you allude to in the world of politics and finance are indeed shameful. Being a young person these days without rich parents is just not fun anymore.
Those of the right wing persuasion who attempt to defend Congress' efforts to privatize college finance need to ask themselves this question: how do you expect today's generation of college grads and master's grads to pay our SS and medicare bills in our old age if their careers never take off due to insolvency from the crushing burden of repaying their college loans, or because they never graduate in the first place due to running out of cash or losing their nerve with the loan staring them in the face? You preach a good line about America's ability to economically whip the rest of the planet on a level playing field- but our ability to compete rests squarely on having an educated workforce. Whine about college being too expensive if you wish, but that won't solve the problem. If you want college professors to work for 30 grand per year, fine, that will just make them all quit and then you can teach the next generation which you are clearly not equipped to do.
To save a couple lousy billion by making it unrealistic for low income families to send a kid to college is just penny wise and pound foolish. And remember that it is not "just" an issue of affirmative action. Some of those kids shut out of college will be black and some will be white and bankruptcy court is no respecter of privilege.
Life lessons cost some people more then another and honestly it is not how much you make or the education you have but how it used to gain wealth which is in all honesty not counted in dollars and cents.
I feel strongly about credit, no one forced any of these student to make a loan, and no one forced them to take the credit and its rates.
I think that public policy should be guided by a higher moral code than "I did not technically break the law".
And as far as your idea that a student has the right to borrow or not, you are also wrong. If a poor student chooses not to borrow than he simply cannot go to school, so if he/she wants to go to school than he doesn't have a choice in borrowing – he must – and the loan companies know this. Simple logic and reason there Don C.
Now, you say it is the student's fault for choosing the corrupt lender, but how can the student know if the lender is corrupt or not if the University proposes that they don't even know themselves? And how can a student know a company is corrupt if the company takes great pains to hide its corruption? That's like says that its your own fault for not knowing that your friend hid your car keys. Furthermore, Part of the student's tuition goes to pay these financial aid advisors to do just that, advise the students on what is best for them so that they can concentrate on getting good grades for their $50,000 a year tuition. There's a novel idea, actually do what you are paid to do (instead of something you are not, like improve your stock portfolio).
From your comments about it being ok to do wrong if as long as no one finds out about it, I take it that you are an advocate of taking advantage of unsuspecting people. I would never do business with you if I knew that, and I now have 0 respect for you as a person, so yes, character and morals do matter in the real world and you would do well to adhere to some sort of moral code.
Now to answer your question of whether or not they broke the law; yes, they did. And they broke the law for the same reason that Martha Stewart broke the law, because it is a conflict of interest, and it is insider trading, and it is a breach of trust between an institution and the people that give that institution its money. You know when to sell because you know that the stock will go up when you put them on your preferred lender list. You are also possibly to by the company that you should buy because they know that the stock will go up. Why would they do this? As a gift for putting them on the preferred lender list.
And this person was not simply promoting his stock, if he were then we would have been informed that he had stock in the company and we could therefore be allowed to evaluate the situation taking that into account. However, this info was not divulged, and therefore it was not promotion but manipulation (and manipulation of ones trust). That's the same as saying that my dumping sugar into your engine without your permission than slapping a business card on your window is simply for the promotion of my engine repair business. Furthermore, financial aid advisor was being paid by the University for the benefit of the students, not the benefit of his stock. If he had not been working for the University than possibly no laws would have been broken, but he was.
Both I and the majority of my friends were the first generation in their families to attend college, coming from working class families, and I didn't know a single person at my college (no doubt there were many, I just had the wrong friends I suppose) who didn't have student loans. Yes, I did work all through college, including summers and on campus. And I went to the cheapest university in the state for just that reason.
University campuses are like small cities and educational businesses combined, and they have all of the responsibilities and demands of both.