News, Views and Careers for All of Higher Education
April 3, 2007
If the private student loan industry has resembled the Wild West in recent years, as more than one commentator has suggested, multiple politicians are running for sheriff. But on Monday, New York Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo became the first to put actual notches in his belt.
Cuomo announced at a news conference (at high noon, to boot) that facing the threat of legal action, several universities had signed settlement agreements obligating them to repay funds they had received from lenders and to abide by a “code of conduct” that will require them to give up or change certain aspects of their relationships with student loan companies. And one of the student loan industry’s biggest players, Citibank, agreed that it too would abide by the code of conduct, and no longer offer to pay colleges a portion of their private loan volume to use for financial aid — a practice Cuomo had derided as “kickbacks.”
Under the agreements Cuomo announced Monday, Citibank agreed not only to abide by the code of conduct in all its dealings with colleges, but to create a $2 fund million fund, administered by the attorney general’s office, to “educate college-bound students about the student loan industry.”
And the following institutions agreed to repay to student borrowers money (a total of about $3.2 million) that lenders had paid them based on a portion of their loan business: Fordham ($13,840), Long Island ($2,435), New York ($1,394,563), St. John’s ($80,553) and Syracuse Universities ($164,085), and the University of Pennsylvania ($1,617,580). St. Lawrence University and the State University of New York also agreed to sign the code of conduct, although the latter’s institutions were not required to make any reimbursements or take other steps to comply with the attorney general’s settlement agreement, because they had not engaged in the practices to which Cuomo objects.
“These schools and Citibank have made the responsible choice and are showing themselves to be industry leaders by being the first to take a major step in cleaning up a system laden with conflicts of interest,” Cuomo said. “We are beginning the process of restoring trust between universities and students and now is the time for other schools and lenders to step up and end the conflicts, perks and revenue sharing that have been costing students in New York and across the country dearly. These schools and Citibank are setting the example the entire industry should live by.”
As they have throughout the attorney general’s investigation, consumer groups applauded the latest moves. “Consumers Union commends Attorney General Cuomo for moving swiftly to stop unfair practices, secure compensation for students and their families and improve public oversight,” said Chuck Bell, programs director for Consumers Union, which publishes Consumer Reports magazine. “With the skyrocketing costs of college tuition, students and parents need fair play and straight information from universities and lenders. This code of conduct will transform the lending process, result in more affordable loans for students and their families and should be viewed as a model for widespread adoption by schools and lenders across the nation.”
Even as the institutions struck their deals with Cuomo, some of them made clear that they had done so under duress. John Beckman, a spokesman for New York University, said in an interview Monday that the university had settled Cuomo’s accusations that the university had failed to adequately disclose to students its revenue sharing agreement with Citibank because “it had no interest in further legal proceedings with the attorney general,” and that from “a cost standpoint,” the settlement made sense.
But reflecting the views of quite a lot of college administrators these days, Beckman said that NYU officials felt “great frustration” that the attorney general had besmirched the university’s reputation and made its relationship with Citibank seem like something it should be ashamed of.
“We used what could be said to be the best practices in choosing a preferred lender,” said Beckman. The university chose its private loan provider through a competitive process that Citibank clearly won by offering “the lowest rate for the greatest number of students,” even those with poor credit scores. After the university chose Citibank, he said, the lender offered access to a program in which it agreed to pay the university 0.25 percent of its private loan volume for NYU to use for need-based financial aid for its students.
“It was a source of frustration to use that they could not see this particular set of facts the way we did,” Beckman said, “and that they could not see that this other money is better used as financial aid for NYU than as Citibank profits.”
Officials at Penn, which was also accused by the attorney general of failing to make its revenue sharing agreement sufficiently transparent, made a similar point in a statement posted on the university’s Web site. Penn officials acknowledged that they had failed to disclose the arrangement clearly. But “[t]he CitiAssist program offered competitive rates and terms for our students at an interest rate equal to the prime rate or lower,” said Craig R. Carnaroli, its executive vice president. Still, “[t]o avoid any appearance of impropriety, the university has decided to settle the matter.”
Competition Among Lawmakers
The settlements announced Monday follow by three weeks Cuomo’s announcement that his sweeping investigation into the student loan industry had uncovered “deceptive practices” and an “unholy alliance” between lenders and colleges, and by two weeks his statement that he planned to sue one student loan provider, Education Finance Partners, because it “aggressively offered schools cash kickbacks in exchange for business.”
Late last week, as Inside Higher Ed reported Monday, the attorney general sent draft settlement agreements to some of the dozens of colleges from which he had earlier collected information about loan practices, and urged them to sign the accords to avoid being sued under New York State’s consumer protection laws. He threatened to file such lawsuits, or at least issue subpoenas against perceived non-cooperators, as soon as today.
Some campus legal experts questioned whether Cuomo has the legal basis to pursue such lawsuits, because the state law provides a full exemption for practices that are legal under federal law, as the revenue sharing agreements are. And officials at some colleges outside New York said they were checking with officials in their own states about whether they are susceptible under state law in New York.
But it is also clear that colleges (and lenders) are feeling increasing pressure to reform their student loan practices — pressure not only from Cuomo but from members of Congress and even the Education Department, which is contemplating changes in its rules governing colleges’ relationships with lenders after several years in which the department was widely acknowledged to have done little to enforce the existing rules and the underlying federal laws.
With Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) (who respectively head the U.S. Senate and House education committees) pushing their own inquiries into the behavior of the student loan industry, there is suddenly an arms race in which politicians are competing to show that they are advocates for students and taxpayers. Kennedy’s “Student Loan Sunshine Act” legislation would do many of the same things at the national level that the Education Department has proposed doing in its rule making process — and that Cuomo is trying to achieve, college by college and lender by lender, with his lawsuits and settlement agreements.
What’s not clear is how many colleges and universities will seize the chance to respond to Cuomo’s offer/threat, which came with intense pressure. In interviews in recent days, college officials, particularly those in New York, said they did not relish the idea of being at odds with the attorney general and saw the settlements as a potentially not-too-painful way to end practices with which they themselves had grown uncomfortable or that had, at least, come to be viewed negatively by many. This is particularly true of some of the more egregious instances, such as lender-paid trips to exotic destinations and lenders’ staffing of financial aid offices.
But others still defend some of the practices that the attorney general has criticized as a group as “deceptive” or worse. As a senior official at one institution targeted by Cuomo said: “There are there reasons why the attorney general did this: politics, politics and politics. This was not about significant improvement in the way lending goes on; this was about maximization of press coverage and aggrandizement. You can’t come to any other conclusion when you look at how universities were lumped together,” regardless of the alleged wrongdoing for which they were cited.
Late Monday, the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators released a statement that said it understood why some colleges chose to settle, but that it would “stand by any postsecondary institution that decides otherwise and goes to court to adjudicate this matter. Schools that do not agree to this settlement care just as much about their student and parent borrowers and have as much integrity as the schools that agreed to the settlement.” It added: “We believe the schools who challenge the Attorney General’s actions will prevail in any court case.”
It will become clearer in the coming days how much movement Cuomo’s campaign will generate, and how many institutions might call his bluff. Officials from the attorney general’s office told some college leaders last week that the lawsuits and subpoenas could start flying as soon as today, and that Cuomo planned to make an example of some colleges. Stay tuned.
Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.
Advertisement
I originally thought that this scandal was a tempest in a teapot. I was wrong. After reading further details like the $1.6 Million that my alma mater, the University of Pennsylvania, received under a “revenue sharing” agreement with Citibank, I am appalled that such practices were occurring on sevearl campuses. Even new green financial aid officers should know that such arrangments are illegal. And where was the oversight from the President of the University?
Well, I’ve changed my whole tune on this investigation. Go after them Mr. Cuomo, but please do not paint a picturfe that all financial aid officers are like those cited in your prosecutions.
feudi pandola, at 8:35 am EDT on April 3, 2007
Please explain why the Penn practices are illegal.
FA Admin, at 9:00 am EDT on April 3, 2007
With one statement—that “now is the time for other schools and lenders to step up and end the ... conflicts, perks and revenue sharing"—the NY AG put a dagger in the heart of the STAR Act.
The U.S. government cannot now sanction financial rewards ("revenue-sharing")to financial aid administrators, regardless of the reason. More dubious would be financial rewards in return for the schools giving their student loans to the Direct Loan program.
adwhite, at 10:10 am EDT on April 3, 2007
What is wrong? There are variations among institutional practices, but too often this is what happens:
(1) Lenders need to make loans to make money, so they encourage schools to put loans into students’ financial aid packages. This is an important force behind the so-called enrollment management movement that has swept the nation, through which institutional grant aid has been moved to the non-needy, leaving more needy students with no options other than loans. Enrollment management is (not surprisingly) touted by big for-profit lenders as profitable for stockholders.
(2) Given that there is more reliance on loans, individual lenders then need to get an institution to prefer its loans over its competitors’. In some cases, lenders provide financial incentives and benefits to schools and to school officials to get an edge, even if their loans do not provide the best terms and conditions for the students.
(3) The revenues that go back to the school, while often characterized as financial aid to students, may wind up supporting the same enrollment management strategy that encourages loans in the first place. Many institutions would fail an audit to show that these revenues are being used above and beyond other aid to reduce low-income students’ reliance on self-help.
(4) American higher education consequently falls yet further behind other countries in the share of the population with college degrees, countries that are getting ahead of us by NOT relying on for-profit loan finance.
What is surprising is that this system is defended. What will not be surprising is that many leading institutions will abandon both enrollment management and preferred lender systems not simply because of the smell of corruption, but because they know it is bad for the country.
Veteran Professional, at 11:50 am EDT on April 3, 2007
I totally agree with Feudi Pandola. In addition, I also think the universities’ procurement officials should also shame some of the blame. What has happened is a blatant conflict of interest regardless of the “intent” and I am amazed that this is not visible to the officials cited in the article. Universities should incorporate and abide by policies that prohibit such actions; which means no money, gratuities, paid trips, etc., will be accepted from those who provide services to the university. Ethics demands this!
Dr. C., at 12:26 pm EDT on April 3, 2007
Anybody who thinks there is such a thing as Academic Integrity hasn’t been in school for a long time.
RCG, at 1:55 pm EDT on April 3, 2007
Obviously, these arrangements between lenders and schools fall somewhere between not passing the smell test and ethically challenged behavior. But has Cuomo come up with a shred of evidence that students received inferior loan products as a result of this? He can argue that in theory they didn’t have all options made clear to them, but who got ripped off and for how much? Especially on Federal loans, there’s no significant wiggle room for rate/term variations. And where is it written that a school must use financial considerations alone to recommend lenders?
And as for his new Code of Conduct for colleges, since when does NY State pass statute or regulation by means of a PowerPoint slide shown at a press conference by the Attorney General?
DS, at 3:50 pm EDT on April 3, 2007
Somewhere along the line we all need to step back, take a deep breath and look at the big picture. Here is my top ten list:
1. The feds do not regulate private student loans-at least not like Stafford and PLUS. 2. The schools that participated in the revenue sharing put the money into scholarships, services, etc only after a process to determine and secure competitive loans. 3. No federal law has been broken. 4. We don’t know if NY law was broken because noone has gone to trial. 5. It is dubious whether the NYAG has any authority to do anything to schools outside of NY. (I am a little surprised that the U of PA) would acquiesce so easily). 6. The settlements are a joke, and may violate federal law. 7. The amounts paid in retribution are miniscule. 8. The loans that students received have not been shown to be inferior to the alternatives. 9. The money to pay back “harmed” students will come from operating funds or endowments which will mean...are you ready...10. less scholarships for students next year, or tuition increase to offset. TA DA!
My isn’t that Mr Cuomo a fine public servent.
Bob, at 4:45 pm EDT on April 3, 2007
Extortion. Simple extortion. NYAG says that if you don’t pay I’ll talk bad about you on the news for months and ultimately, that will cost you more than just paying me off.
I consider the rates and repayment options and operational efficiencies when I evaluate lenders. Even then, I only name them “preferred.” We certainly process plenty of loans outside of our “preferred” list. So, when a “preferred” lender sends me a check to use as incremental financial aid for needy students, I don’t hesitate to accept it and use those funds to reduce the cost of someone’s education.
Name one program that the government has managed well. Name one program that costs consumers less under government management than it cost under private management. The funds that lenders are sharing, a small piece of their profits, are going back into the hands of students. In the government control model, those profits (if they even exist) will be used to pay the salaries of bureaucrats.
The bell tolls.
MDL, at 11:25 am EDT on April 4, 2007
A poster asked me:
Please explain why the Penn practices are illegal.
I didn’t say they were illegal, Penn did when it agreed to pay them back.
feudi pandola, at 8:36 am EDT on April 6, 2007
We do not use preferred lender lists at either of my schools, and never have. I am on an advisory committee for AES and the only “perks” I ever received was auto mileage to Harrisburg and lunch...there was a half day outing to the Eisenhower Farm that was very nice and very inexpensive, in recognition of the committees efforts.
I do think Mr. Cuomo should expand his efforts to include a review of the Direct Loan program, and of the interest rates charged by some student lenders. I had one student come to me with an alternative loan funded by Sallie Mae on which she was paying 13.72%. To me, that rate constitutes a predatory lending practice and ought to be illegal.
feudi pandola, at 8:45 am EDT on April 6, 2007
I am a parent, not associated with this industry. I am also a financially pressured parent of a U of A student who is about to graduate. I have been doing months of research on this issue and I must admit that I should have done it three years ago. I applaude Mr. Cuomo. I have spent the last seven months trying to get someone to listen to me about the predatory practice of the financial aid office at this school. I was stonewalled for several months when I attempted to use my credit union as the approved Parent Plus lender for my daughters senior year. I was lied to, deflected and ignored when I attempted to process this “unapproved” lender. I called and wrote everybody. The Dept of Ed ( useless ) Mohela, AES, you name it, I called them, I wrote them, I faxed them. It all came down to the fact that U of A could not accept the fact I wanted to use my own lender at a better rate than one of their “approved” lenders. The good news is I documented everything. I have offered all of my files to the AG’s in New York, California and Arizona.
I am not some nut case from California ranting about a perceived injustice. This was a real and blatent abuse of the process and system. I admit I made errors in the loan process that may have affected the timeliness of the funding but I repeatedly asked for help or clarification. I am not a “newby” at this, it’s my 4th year and I know how complicated the entire student loan process can be. In addition, I also knew I was within my rights to use a lender other than the approved lender. The school delayed and stonewalled the completion of this loan well in to the beginning of the school year. They billed me late fees, they turned off my daughters Email account, affected her ability to buy books etc.. Guess who was writing checks to cover all this ?
I am not suggesting that you are all corrupt, I know that is far from true. I can tell from your commentary that many of you have seen some types of questionable practices and believe they should be corrected. I hope that you make a stand to self-review your techniques and resolve any ethical inconsistencies on your own so that students and parents that rely on you can believe that you are honestly working in their best interest and not the interest of large lenders.
Sincerely,
TL
Orange Ca
TFL, at 5:30 am EDT on May 9, 2007
Advertisement
or search for jobs directly.
In the historic, coastal city of Charleston, the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) offers a wide range of ... see job
Job Description: Full-time position to oversee, manage and coordinate Information Technology Services (ITS) ... see job
Development Director (Assistant Dean for Development or Director of Development-Level Depends on Experience/Qualifications) ... see job
The Department of Public Safety comprises more than 350 uniformed officers and management personnel who are committed to ... see job
Wake Forest University seeks a tenure-track assistant professor of United States history for appointment beginning August ... see job
Founded in 1957, Lansing Community College serves 40,000 students. A public community college governed by an elected board of ... see job
Joliet Junior College is located in the Chicagoland area. JJC offers over 100 degree and certificate programs in the arts and ... see job
Join one of the finest regional universities in the nation. James Madison University, home to 18,000 + students, welcomes you ... see job
Columbus State Community College invests in employee development by providing numerous resources, partnerships, training and ... see job
The Law School Development Specialist will be responsible for the delivery of assigned tasks or functions that are essential ... see job
All this fuss....it makes me wonder what the real issue is?
Isn’t it funny that the government, who by its own actions set up the loan industry is now calling it corrupt. Maybe we need more rules, therefore we drive up the cost of compliance.
If the people in our government want to really help students with their education then they should do away with loans and put all the resources in grants. The only problem with that is who will get the grants?As most politicians know, poor people do not vote.
By fighting the corrupt loan industry, it looks like these politicians are really doing something. The thing that they are doing is driving up the cost of education, as the money that the “special arrangements” generated, help offset price (tuition) increases to students. Gee, sounds like business to me...oh I forgot education isn’t a business. That might be the biggest issue of all, not thinking that education is a business.
Politicians are after the vote, so what ever is popular at the moment will be what everyone jumps on. When the dust settles, nothing will be accomplished.
After all, it takes away the “heat” from the Spellings Commissions reports and recent summit.
Jim, at 8:20 am EDT on April 3, 2007