Search News


Browse Archives

News

Obama Slams Lenders and Colleges

April 27, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

With Congress poised to give the White House a smoother path to push its plan to end the lender-based student loan program, President Obama warned Friday that he was girding up for a fight with banks and their "army of lobbyists."

But the president didn't limit his tough talk to the lenders, challenging college presidents to "control spiraling costs" and "put affordability front and center as they chart a path forward."

Obama's 2010 budget proposal in February included an aggressive plan to make all new federal student loans out of Federal Direct Student Loan Program, using tens of billions of dollars in savings from eliminating the competing Family Federal Education Loan Program to ensure a stable and steadily growing stream of funding for the Pell Grant Program, the chief source of federal need-based financial aid. The administration was banking on the fact that while many colleges use and support the lender-based guaranteed student loan program, the prospect of a Pell entitlement, which they have long coveted, would outweigh their reservations.

A letter last week in which most of the major higher education associations cautiously backed the Obama plan suggested that the administration's calculus was accurate.

The student loan industry, however, has in recent weeks turned up its opposition to the plan, and it has especially objected to the administration's push for Congress to use a controversial parliamentary budget procedure, known as reconciliation, to allow lawmakers to make major policy changes with far fewer opportunities for dissent or amendment. Late Thursday, Democratic leaders in the Senate and the House reportedly agreed that their compromise budget resolution would clear the way for using budget reconciliation to pursue the administration's proposals for both the student loan programs and for health care.

At a White House event Friday that featured a student from the University of Maryland and her mother, Obama described expanded access to higher education as essential for Americans and for America, and noted that at a time when the importance of college has never been higher, the price of attending college has risen higher than ever before.

"This trend -- a trend where a quality higher education slips out of reach for ordinary Americans -- threatens the dream of opportunity that is America's promise to all its citizens. It threatens to widen the gap between the haves and the have-nots," he said. "And it threatens to undercut America's competitiveness -- because America cannot lead in the 21st century unless we have the best educated, most competitive workforce in the world."

The president recounted various steps the administration has taken so far to address college access, but said that much more remains to be done -- and that his budget plan to kill the guaranteed loan program and use the savings to create a mandatory Pell Grant is the best route to achieving it.

"[U]nder the FFEL program, taxpayers are paying banks a premium to act as middlemen -- a premium that costs the American people billions of dollars each year. Well, that's a premium we cannot afford -- not when we could be reinvesting that same money in our students, in our economy, and in our country. ... [T]he money we could save by cutting out the middleman would pay for 95 percent of our plan to guarantee growing Pell Grants. This would help ensure that every American, everywhere in this country, can out-compete any worker, anywhere in the world."

Lenders have come out of the woodwork, Obama said Friday, to "keep things the way they are. They are gearing up for battle. So am I. They will fight for their special interests. I will fight for ... American students and their families. And for those who care about America's future, this is a battle we can't afford to lose."

(Student loan groups responded to the president's statements by applauding his commitment to college access but questioning whether his tactics were the best for the country, or for students. "The president's plan, although touted as a means of promoting higher education, is not," Marcia Z. Sullivan, director of government relations for the Consumer Bankers Association, said in a prepared statement. "The plan does not reduce the cost of student loans for a single student. Students and parents need to know that under this proposal, the government's profits on student loans borrowed by middle income students will be used to finance other student aid." And see the related essay published today in Inside Higher Ed.)

While Obama portrayed the administration's loan/Pell proposal as a partial solution to the country's college access problems, he made clear that it will be up to colleges and state leaders to address the root cause of those problems: rapidly rising tuitions.

"[W]hile our nation has a responsibility to make college more affordable, colleges and universities have a responsibility to control spiraling costs," the president said. "And that will require hard choices about where to save and where to spend. So I challenge state, college and university leaders to put affordability front and center as they chart a path forward. I challenge them to follow the example of the University of Maryland, where they're streamlining administrative costs, cutting energy costs, using faculty more effectively, making it possible for them to freeze tuition for students and for families."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Obama Slams Lenders and Colleges

  • Glad to
  • Posted by Frustrated Administrator on April 27, 2009 at 6:00am EDT
  • We would be more than happy to slow down tuition increases. First, the federal government needs to stop increasing regulations that result in us having to hire additional people to implement and monitor those regulations.

  • Major Problem with Direct Program
  • Posted by Alan Collinge , Founder at Studentloanjustice.org on April 27, 2009 at 7:45am EDT
  • While it seems like a no-brainer to throw support behind the Direct Program, Standard consumer protections that were lobbied away uniquely from student loans remain astonishingly absent under the Direct Loan Program as it is currently proposed, and it would be a huge waste- a rare opportunity for good government squandered- to proceed without dealing with this fact first. The Department of Education has become lazy- and fat- with respect to the federal student loan program. The Department is not losing any money on defaulted student loans, and is perhaps even making money due to the predatory collection powers it has to strongarm misfortunate borrowers for far more than what was originally borrowed. Since standard bankruptcy protections were removed, the Department can sit back, and watch it all unfold, not really caring whether or not students default. Because ED has found a way to eliminate their own financial risk (neverminding the ruined lives this causes of course), there is no motivation to look after the schools to make sure the students are getting the highest quality education at the lowest cost (and in a reasonable amount of time). Whether the loans are FFEL, or Direct, this is big, lazy, disgusting government at its worst, and the Department of Education has indeed watched it all unfold...or maybe "explode" is a better description. No amount of bureaucratic gibberish will alter the facts on the ground, at this point. Defaults were never decreasing...they were just being shifted to where they didn't have to be counted. Oversight by OFSA was a joke, Congress was more than willing to raise loan limits at the asking, and the universities were more than happy to serve the students up. Now we have something unfolding that looks alot like the home mortgage crisis, except that where home mortgage borrowers are being forced into bankruptcy, and ultimately into the streets, misfortunate student loan borrowers who wind up in default (probably 30%, as opposed to the pollyannish 5% figure we have heard for years) are stuck with principal, penalties, and fees, often pushing the possibility of homeownership even further down the road. President Obama was right that the people have said "Enough!". The voters don't want more government- they want better government. It would be tough to make the people who head the Office of Federal Student Aid actually care about the students, but by restoring standard bankruptcy protections to student loans, and taking away some of the cruelest collection powers (like taking social security pay from senior citizens, for instance), the Department might actually start thinking about ways to actually improve quality, reduce cost, and thus avoid defaults...Pretty much what they should have been doing this whole time.

  • Student Loan Hell
  • Posted by David Ferraro on April 27, 2009 at 9:00am EDT
  • The comment above is correct. Under Federal Law, Student loans have no statute of limitations, meaning they can be collected on forever. They cannot be discharged in bankruptcy. They are not subject to due process in collections; up to 15% of your wages can be garnished at any time with as much as a simple administrative hearing. No service of process, trial, or other means to defend yourself. Lastly, if you happen to default on your student loans currently, a collection fee of 25% is automatically given to a collection company which is added to your loan....PLUS INTEREST. This amount brings the total owed to far exceed the amount the student originally borrows. The collection agencies are foaming at the mouth for this kind of free money, to which they have done nothing to earn -- other than to simply exist. The government or guarantor agency simply tells them out of the blue one day, that they deserve 25% of whatever your loan balance is -- and because of the lack of normal cosumer protection, the market is ripe with collection abuse.

    I'd also like to note that some borrowers, during the last two years, have entered into a "rehabilitation program", which is a program under the Higher Education Act, that if a student makes 9, on time, voluntary payments to his student loan after defaulting, then all their previous bad credit is erased for that loan, and the loan is purhcased by a private lender. The problem is, since 2008, the private lenders have all but disappeared, leaving these poor students stuck in student rehab hell. They've entered a program with (usually) high payments, kept their end of the bargain, continue to make payments, and yet their credit cannot be repaired because the there are no private lenders to complete the program. Talk about disparate treatment. This should be primary concern to Obama. You have students, who have stepped forward to do the right thing, pay up and get back on track with their student loans, and the last thing we want to do is say, nevermind, go back to not paying, because all the benefits of paying us back have dried up.

  • Tuition
  • Posted by A. Non on April 27, 2009 at 9:00am EDT
  • President Obama's point about tuition is right on the mark.

    At one elite liberal arts college in New England, which charges $50,000+ in total fees, tuition is set by considering where it stands relative to its comparison group of nine peers in the coming year. The Board and President have an overt goal of staying at the median of this group of other elite colleges and repeatedly keep tuition increases at the 6% and above mark in order to ensure that they do not fall behind. The President, in fact, (foolishly) is public in his stated goal about being at the median, for to fall below would be to be perceived as less elite!

    When Spellings announced a watchlist of all colleges with tuition raises above 6%, the College promptly lowered the raise from 6.5% to 5.9% one year in order to avoid scrutiny.

    When the national focus turned to the high rise in tuition, the College dropped its raise for next year to 3.9%. Interestingly, all its peers saw a similar increase!

    Only federal oversight can prevent such price fixing intended to artificially designate an institution as elite and standing with its aspirant list of colleges!

  • So, What Is Your Point ?
  • Posted by Edward McKinley on April 27, 2009 at 9:15am EDT
  • " Marcia Z. Sullivan, director of government relations for the Consumer Bankers Association, said in a prepared statement. "The plan does not reduce the cost of student loans for a single student. Students and parents need to know that under this proposal, the government's profits on student loans borrowed by middle income students will be used to finance other student aid."

    Oh, the horror. If I understand this statement, and I think I do, then the profit from direct loans will be used to increase available money for families in need. While this may not address the heart of the issue ( restoring standard consumer protection ), it does summarize the reality of the banking lobbies efforts to preserve a system that has been predatory in nature. I know I'll feel better knowing that their profits will go to something other than helping financially needy families send their children to college.

  • Posted by Frustrated Borrower on April 27, 2009 at 9:45am EDT
  • There are at least two issues. One is student loans and one is the concept of spiraling costs.

    On the first issue, the banks, insurance companies, and automobile industries all were bailed out of their poor management snafus with little to no accountability. It would be better money spent by forgiving student loans for people in traditionally poor paying positions that do in fact promote this country's real assets - the teachers, mental health providers, police. But forgive the loans over a 5-year (20% of total loans per year) period of investment in these fields. These are the same people who are struggling to keep their houses and yet don't have profit motivation of the banks, insurane companies, and auto industries.

    These are also many of the employees of the colleges and universities in this country - the second issue. In some schools, teachers are asked to teach an increased classload to eliminate the need for increasing adjunct or new personnel. The pursestrings are so tight at some schools that professional development money is gone or professors bring their own chalk to the classrooms. To say that schools need to watch spiraling tuition hikes is an insult to those institutions that recognize the need to keep students' costs down and struggle to stay healthy in spite of the effect of the poor management snafus of the banks, insurance companies, and automobile industries.

  • amused by all the shock and disbelief
  • Posted by Ex-Loan Huckster on April 27, 2009 at 9:45am EDT
  • A-Non -- I share the sentiment of ridiculous pricing, but this is a free market, and a student can easily punish that or any other elite liberal arts college by simply choosing not to go there. If students selected college based more on their intended career aspiration and the ROI each school could provide in obtaining that profession, then pricing would fall into line. or maybe it already is, i.e., there must be a lot of consumers (college-bound HS seniors) who believe the return is justified at elite liberal arts college. The challenge is that normally you don't learn the college's true value until 4-6 years after you made the decision to attend.

    I really think the guilty party in this in this vicious cycle are parents and high school guidance counselors, parents because they don't take the time to read up on value and return of various academic programs - they simply using emotion and the counselors because they push students the 'best' school they can attend based on grades and test scores, without ANY consideration of family means or intended career. elite liberal arts college is still benefiting from the parents and guidance counselor's laziness and incompetence.

  • government knows best
  • Posted by Mark on April 27, 2009 at 10:00am EDT
  • I think it's important to understand that the administration has everyone's best interests in mind. Government programs are efficient, fair, and responsive to the needs of citizens. Private businesses ignore the needs of customers, and the private system provides no competition that would promote improvements in service. Hope and change in student loans is what we need.

  • wealth transfer
  • Posted by Ex-Loan Huckster on April 27, 2009 at 10:00am EDT
  • Edward McKinley -- yes, you are correct, middle-class students, and many of their parents will be paying higher rates on their educational financing so that low income students can be granted more aid. Sounds like a transfer of wealth to me, but then again I am a foaming-at-the-mouth right winger so what do I know? Has anyone seen what the cost of private education loans has done since the Cuomo/Congressional witch hunts began? 2yrs ago rates were in the 6-9% for decent credit and above, now they run 11% for EXCELLENT credit and go higher from there...

    Nice job Dems. really fixed the ed. financing problems...

  • Agree, loans need major reform
  • Posted by Kirk , PhD Student/Higher Education at Syracuse University on April 27, 2009 at 10:15am EDT
  • As a member of the so-called "middle class" (a convenient designation that includes what many other cultures would call "rich"), I have no problem whatsoever with money my children and I pay on interest for student loans going to subsidize higher education for students with greater financial need. That is a great system.While increasing Pell Grants is an excellent move, one can simply point out - the loan program does not have to be scrapped entirely. It can be reformed to free up private monies that support only students with financial need. Whether that is politically viable or not, I don't know; but it need not be the all-or-nothing approach that Obama is promoting.

  • The real wealth transfer
  • Posted by IHE Reader on April 27, 2009 at 10:45am EDT
  • Ex-Loan Huckster: Your arguments about "wealth transfer" are either ignorant of the facts or disingenuous. In the Direct Loan program, all borrowers (regardless of credit score) pay the same interest rate (based on set time periods and repayment statuses). See http://www.ed.gov/offices/OSFAP/DirectLoan/calc.html for details.

    FFELP is where the real wealth transfer is. Private lenders bear little risk on the money they lend because the government backs the loans with tax-payer dollars. The profits then line the pockets of private shareholders. That's called corporate welfare, but it masquerades as "free enterprise." In contrast, the Direct Loan program has no wealth transfer because the interest on the federal loans goes back into the program to help future students go to college. That's called a public good.

  • Posted by Private vs Federal on April 27, 2009 at 11:00am EDT
  • Many of the commentators seem to be mixing federal loans (Stafford, PLUS, and Perkins) loans in with private student loans. In my experience as a financial aid administrator I've always found the government to be extremely easy to work with when people have needed help. They'll grant forbearances, lower monthly payments and work with the borrow to make sure that they don't get into trouble. This is generally true of for these types of loan whether they were FDSL - where the government is the direct lender or FFELP - where a secondary private lender is used - since all of them have to follow the same federal guidelines.

    Where I have seen horrible abuses is in the private lending market - where the loans are not guaranteed by the government and the loans companies actually make more money when someone gets into trouble.

    Unfortunately, much of the rhetoric I'm hearing is lacking the most basic understanding of how FDSL and FFELP work and how they differ from private student loans.

  • Posted by Joe on April 27, 2009 at 11:15am EDT
  • Students already have a fantastic option to cut their tuition. 2 years at a community college and 2 years at a 4 year institution. The 4 year degree they get will be the same one that people who spent all 4 years there will get.

    There are also two other factors to consider:

    1) The more people you put in higher education the more expensive it becomes. It isn't like a production line where higher volumes lead to lower unit costs. Each person requires the same services and some students, particularly academically challenged students, require much more services/remediation. Those challenged students mean that costs not only rise but they rise faster as you add more students. There are also many courses of study where you can't simply increase course density in an attempt to increase revenue while holding costs steady. When I hear buzzwords like "streamline operations" I think they believe we're turning out widgets.

    2) Regulation and accreditation. Higher education is very heavily regulated. Not only that but we face pseudo-regulation in the form of regional accreditation (as well as an alphabet soup of other accrediting agencies). Every senator in the US Congress imagines him/herself as a college administrator and they administrate by passing laws. The accrediting bodies expect a very high level of services to students as well as very rigorous monitoring tools.

    If you combine the two above it is a difficult environment to "streamline" in. These are not things you can automate or mass produce using technology. Finally, the "sticker price" that people wail so much about is almost never the actual price a student pays. Discounts can easily run 15-20% or more.

  • If Only It Were True
  • Posted by Edward McKinley on April 27, 2009 at 12:15pm EDT
  • To: Private vs Federal

    While I beleive you to be sincere in your remarks, I only wish that it was true. The actual default rates ( as opposed to the misleading ones most commonly quoted by student loan defenders ) indicate anything but the user friendly relationships you wish to beleive in. Moreover, defaulted loans, regardless of being federally guarenteed or private, are both more profitable than those paid as agreed.
    The actual default rates for borrowers 5 plus years out from the time payment is due on guarenteed loans has been etimated at anywhere from 19% - 30%. Unfortunately things like deferment and forbearance often only serve to delay the inevitable. Additionally, these balances often soar during these times creating a debt which is even more unmanageable. Also, it is important to mentin that use of these options is not quite the giveb that is commonly beleived. While the govt. and the guarantors will tell you that defaulted borrowers failed to make good use of these tools, the reality is that servicers such as Sallie Mae have been eager to default these loans and have used multiple tactics to deny these "reliefs."
    The current system has consistantly put enprmous profits ahead of the students. Why do you think the banking industry is willing to fight so hard to preserve the staus quo?
    Anyone who thinks that the actual default rates of student loans is acceptable really needs to take another look. Why would banks want business that is so "risky" if there were no profits to be made? Who would tolerate such high default rates if they were not profitable?
    Banks already pressured congress into eliminating every standard consumer protection from student loans that noone would ever stand for in any other consumer credit. These protections are what prevents you and others from being exploited with your mortgage, car loan and credit cards ( well, sort of ). Guess what? Student loan borrowers are being exploited. Are you really surprised?

  • Defaults either way
  • Posted by DM , High School Advisor at ISD on April 27, 2009 at 12:30pm EDT
  • I would think it would be true that if a student is going to default, they'll default no matter if it is owned by DL or FFELP? The comment about lenders getting their money from tax payers if the student defaults almost seems silly. If a student defaults in FFELP, the lender only gets like 95% of the amount owed because the government covers it-right? However, if a student defaults on a DL loan, then the tax payers have to pay 100% of a default. So that said, isn't it actually cheaper for tax payers for the lender to lose 5% than us to lose 100%? Kind of makes sense to me and I am not a math major but if I can get 100% I will take it over 95% anytime. Also, from something I read a long time back, it seems like the defaults from private lenders was extreemly lower than direct loans. That tells me that all the outreach that lenders do to prevent defaults, must cost them a ton so they actually lose way more than 5% when you consider all the over head cost to have an entire department just for loan default prevention.
    One more thing, I do believe student loans should be able to have bankruptsy protection especially in this current economy.
    I am an high school advisor and I am working with the kids everyday of how to stay out of student loan debt in college. I explain student loans and how they work. I would think some real education on loans alone would be beneficial.

  • Posted by A.Non on April 27, 2009 at 12:30pm EDT
  • To Ex-Loan Huckster:

    You are absolutely right about market economies and the right of colleges to price themselves based on their needs and costs. However, even in a free market, controls are exercised against price-fixing and price-gouging.

    There is nothing at all wrong with tuition being at whatever price that can be demonstrated by a college as necessary. The problem arises when a few institutions, trying to play the hierarchy game, determine to price themselves higher, primarily to seem more elite than they are, by watching trends and ensuring that they stay in the middle of an elite group.

    Price-fixing, using the criterion of appearing elite may even be legal. But it must surely be unethical?

    As for the comments regaring over-regulation of the Academy: certainly accrediting bodies and others ensure regulation of areas, especially curriculum and programs. However, College audits are notoriously very general, and internal financial practices do not see the kind of oversight that they should. Entire areas of financial decision-making -- use of restricted funds, oversight of annual giving, auxiliary services with no connection to the mission but intended to bring new revenues, study abroad fee structures, presidential expenditures, expenditures associated with presidential spouses, etc. -- fly entirely under the radar.

  • Costs for institutions will go up more
  • Posted by TAS on April 27, 2009 at 3:15pm EDT
  • Adding the direct loan program to Colleges and Universities will increase their costs for administrering them, and processing them. The institutions also take on a higher level of risk when processing direct loans.

    Controlling costs - College is no different than any other type of business. When the student and parent are looking for a college, they are looking at the classrooms, the sports, the residence halls - and if they are not modernized, they will choose somewhere else to go that has what they want.

    Now, I don't understand how much of an endowment is necessary for some of these schools - tap into some of theose funds and make things more affordable.

  • some facts
  • Posted by Ex-Loan Huckster on April 27, 2009 at 4:15pm EDT
  • IHE Reader - To elaborate my point about costs - under a healthy FFELP program, the lenders used some of the asset value, yes derived in part from subsidies to compete for market share using a variety of tactics, primarily borrower incentives. So during the years from 1996 to 2006, a student attending Boston College might get a Stafford loan with a 1% or 2% reduction from the prevailing Federal rate, or a principal reduction of anywhere from 3% to 10% depending on the lender, and of course tied to repayment triggers like on-time payments. The same student at Boston University could get only a 0.25% interest rate reduction on his Stafford loan through FDLP. Other marketing tactics were better technologies, web based to get the students their counseling and loan applications anytime, anywhere.

    The vast majority of NASFAA members, while too timid to speak up for themselves, that preferred the FFEL program, and indeed those schools that used the FFEL over FDLP did so because of benefits to the students and parents, not in a quid pro quo to receive kick-backs as alleged (and never proven beyond 5 schools) by Rich Uncles everywhere. Any competent lender rep could run models comparing a FFELP loan with borrower benefits to an FDLP loan and find thousands of dollars in savings. Under Obama's plan, those thousands in savings for a FFELP borrower (who might also be low income) will now be taken and given to a high-need student. Maybe that is our public policy. But that is a wealth transfer.

  • Posted by lacere on May 1, 2009 at 10:30pm EDT
  • Free college education and/or vocational training for all is a human right, and as such is not subject to such 'private profit' nonsense. Most Europeans gained this right after World War II, and it is time that the US catch up, and do away with private elite schools and making false judgments on what someone's parents can "afford" to pay (what if they refuse to pay anything--and shouldn't college students be enabled to be completely independent of their parents for funding and approval?). Reinstating standard consumer protections to all student loans is a part of that process, as is complete loan forgiveness and grinding Sallie Mae into the mud.