Comments on Counterpoint: Why We Choose Direct Lending

• Profits in Direct Loans
• Posted by Jack on May 27, 2009 at 7:45am EDT

• I would respectfully suggest that Mr. Wendt and the aid directors that assisted him on this article visit the appendix to the President's FY 2010 budget. On page 389 you will find that the Obama administration projects making a profit on Direct Loans of 13.10 percent in the current fiscal year. (This information may be found on-line at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2010/assets/edu.pdf.).

  In light of this do you really want to say that "making a profit off of your students is unacceptable when there is a viable alternative?" You seem to believe it is okay for the federal government to make a profit because money is "reinvested" in Pell Grants, but I wonder if your middle income students that don't get Pell and are in fact cross-subsidizing the Pell recipients are okay with this. In fact, the federal government could cut the borrower interest rates on Stafford Loans in half and still make a profit in the Direct Loan, at least on paper. I would call that a viable alternative.

  How would you fund the Pell Grants? I would suggest that if you look at the increased earnings of college graduates as compared to high school graduates, increasing Pell should be viewed as an investment rather than an expenditure. Put another way, there is no need to soak student loan borrowers to justify increasing our national investment in low-income students and their success.

  Also, I would urge the author to ask whether he really believe that eliminating FFEL will save $94 billion over ten years. How can the program be so "profitable" and still be subject to lenders leaving the program because the return (profit) is too low? Could it be that some trick accounting is taking place?

  If you take a good look at the President's proposal, you will see that it depends on an unrealistically low federal cost of borrowing. If you make such an assumption, it is easy to project huge profits. Curiously, nobody--repeat nobody--I know in Washington outside of the political appointees of the new adminsitration believes the President's proposal will save $94 billion over ten years. In fact, we are told that the Congressional Budget Office will soon issue a revised budget estimate suggesting that their initial estimate was off by as much as $9 billion.

  Should a Pell Grant increase be funded on inflated budget savings that are unlikely to happen? Will Congress feel obligated to rescind the Pell increases should next year's budget indicate that this year's student loan savings estimate was wrong?

  I also want to urge this author to take a closer look at the default rates. As Mr. Wendt would know, high-risk borrowers default more often on their student loans than low-risk borrowers, even if the servicing is excellent and the borrowers try their best to meet their obligations. If you adjust the default numbers put forward by the administration to create an apples-to-applies comparison of FFEL and Direct Loans, you will see that Direct Loans does not have a lower default rate.

  Let me close by indicating that I have no problem with Mr. Wendt's preference for the Direct Loan program. I do have a problem that the Obama adminsitration wants to impose Direct Lending on schools and students who might prefer dealing with financial institutions and receiving the benefits of professional default avoidance assistance from FFEL guaranty agencies.

• Re Jack's comment
• Posted by Rich on May 27, 2009 at 9:15am EDT

• The above comment misses the point. This is the government's money--all of it. Why the government should be forced to give away a portion of the potential profit from putting its money to work is beyond me, and it's beyond most people.

  If private lenders want to be in the student loan business, they can loan their own money.

• Re Rich's comment
• Posted by Darci , Financial Aid Counselor on May 27, 2009 at 10:00am EDT

• Government's money?!? What money? We should have them lend out even more money that they don't have? Seriously?!? They started FFELP in the first place because they didn't have the money to lend. As far as I can tell, they have even less than when FFELP started.

• To Rich
• Posted by Jack Jr. on May 27, 2009 at 10:30am EDT

• You miss the point. It is not "the government's" money. It is our money - the taxpayers. Or, it could be argued, it is the money of middle class students who are paying double the rate of interest needed so the money can be re-allocated to Pell Grants.

  If the government can borrow at .25% why should a student have to pay 6.8%?

  Instead of making just the middle class pay for the Pell Grant - why not levie a fee on all students? That way everyone has skin in the game. Not just those people who have to take loans to pay for college.

  There are roughly 18 million students (NCES) and an annual Pell budget of $15 billion (New America Foundation)- so we need approx. $820/student to cover the whole program. Even if we only offset the cost by collecting a portion of the program - that would be more fair.

• Posted by eddiemeboy on May 27, 2009 at 10:30am EDT

• Actually Rich, in the FFEL program it is the Lenders money. They lend the money, service the loans and do required due diligence when the loans become past due. They also staff call centers to deal with borrower inquiries and use state of the art electronic means to communicate with their borrowers. This is why the Government paid them a small fee (1-2 percent) because they knew it would be too expensive for the government to lend and service the loans on their own. Now however, through the magic of “off budget financing” these cost can be hidden and they can project “savings”.

• Posted by JD on May 27, 2009 at 10:33am EDT

• Mr. Wendt is clueless. I used to work for a DL school and now work for a FFELP school. Night and day. The servicing was so bad for DL that it would take days to get an answer to a simple question. Now it takes a few minutes and I dont have to call all the lenders to do it, that's what the servicer is for! He also makes it seem that the simplicity in using COD for Pell and ACG is a by-product of DL. Everyone uses COD for ACG and Pell! Let's also not forget that all the while those lenders were making a profit, the students were seeing the benefit in zero fee loans. Last time I checked, DL did not offer such a benefit and that's why no one participated in it. Let me simply pose this; DL started back in 1993-94 I believe. If the program is so efficient and sound, why has it taken our current situation to make schools switch? Up until the credit crisis and issues in the lending industry, very few schools had any interest in DL. Now we are essentially being forced to switch. Most schools are reluctantly switching because they see the writing on the wall, not because the DL program is better. Obviously there was a reason they did bot switch sooner. And that reason was another governement controlled industry that was and will continue to be poorly run and will eventually cost taxpayers more money. I wont argue that lenders were making more money than they shoudl but let's not forget that the government set the subsidies! Just like always, it's the government saying I know we set it up and now it's costing too much money, so we'll fix it by taking it over. Even thought we were the inept ones that created the problem, the solution is us taking it over. The estimates on 94 billiion are way off and even the administation has all but admitted it. Whatever happended to letting competition drive the industry. When it was the ones who truly benefitted were the students.

• Stop spreading misinformation
• Posted by Frank , Financial Aid Representative at CSU on May 27, 2009 at 11:30am EDT

• Stop spreading misinformation. I have worked at both DL and FFLP schools. I can tell you from experience that FFLP is bad and always has been. The DL program had some start-up issues, but those have been resolved long ago. If you actually work in the trenches like I do, then you know the pain of late and inaccurate FFLP reporting for spring transfer students. Likewise, the inaccuracy of FFLP consolidation loans are another pain to deal with when working on a student's file that has loan aggregate issues.

  Perhaps the prior comments are from FFLP lenders and their cronies that work in financial aid. Perhaps you lost sight of the goal of breaking down the financial barriers to getting an education and provding equal access.

  When has it been in the public's interest to have private companies administer the public good? Look at the track record of FFLP and the recent loan scandals over the last few years.

  Again, stop spreading misinformation and get with the program for the sake of the students.

   

• Thanks for the counterpoint
• Posted by Eileen O'Leary , Asst. VP Student Financial Services at Stonehill College on May 27, 2009 at 1:30pm EDT

• The financial aid directors who have responded to counter Mr. Spiers are right on the money - literally and figuratively. This whole issue is not about FFELP or DL. It's about students. Those who know me understand that I have been a long-time supporter of the Direct Loan program, for the reasons stated by Tim Wendt and for many more as well. DL is now a mature, strong, and proven program with lower defaults than its counterpart and simpler administration for schools. It is a viable option for student loan delivery and collections.

  The argument about "government profits from direct lending" is a red herring. The issue is whether the government should pay a middleman to do something it does very well itself at a lower cost or shift those dollars to fund students instead. Money is limited and it’s time to decide that taxpayer dollars spent on higher education financial aid should actually be spent on students, not middlemen.

  I believe that we as financial aid administrators must step back, step up and remember WHY we are aid administrators - not to support the lending industry because they are our long-time friends and colleagues, not to be proponents of a loan delivery system because we are comfortable with it - we are aid administrators first whose purpose is to help students.

  The Obama budget proposal will do just that. It will add up to $94 BILLION over ten years to the Pell Grant Program to help the needy students we see every day who struggle and borrow too much to achieve their dream of a higher education which benefits not only them, but our country as a whole. In fact, some of the current increase to Pell that our students are now receiving will expire shortly and the cliff effect will cause decreases to the maximum Pell. The Obama budget proposal will counteract that and not only save the Pell funding they currently have, but will significantly increase it over time.

  I urge all financial aid administrators, regardless of our politics, to remember the students across from our desks. I expect that they would choose higher, more stable Pell Grants over lender profits and continuation of the status quo.

• Posted by eddiemeboy on May 27, 2009 at 3:00pm EDT

• Lets see if I got this right under the FFEL program a lender lends lets say 100 million dollars to a group of students. The government pays the lender 2 million dollars to service the loans. This includes all the cost of mailings, phone calls call center staffing etc. they also pay on the defaults lets say 10 million to be generous. So the lender has laid out 100 million the fed has paid a total of 12 million. In the Feds new math they will now originate the 100 million absorb the defaults and pay some yet to be determined entity to service the loans. And this will save us money? Talk about your red herrings! The real money to pay for Pell will come from the students that pay a fixed rate regardless of the Feds cost of funds. In the past student loans were variable rate and reflected current market conditions now they are fixed and students will be the worse for it. There will be no REAL savings by eliminating FFEL there will actually be increased cost but through the magic of off budget financing these cost will remain hidden. Somebody needs to tell the emperor that he is not wearing any clothes.

• Posted by Full Monty Hall on May 27, 2009 at 3:15pm EDT

• Tim Wendt's piece is an exercise in missing the point. Rebuttal to what? No one on the FFELP side has adocated 100% FFELP.

  He likes direct lending. Good for him, more power to him. (He doesn't like profit, which would seem to contradict the philosophy of his colleagues in the career center and the development office on his campus. His grads can't all work for the government? Or can they, Mr. Wendt?)

  But it's presumptuous and autocratic for him and his peers to suggest that what works for them necessarily works for others. He also doesn't really address why in the long run having a student loan monopoly is best for borrowers. Is he prepared to live with the postal service of loans?

  I disagree with Eileen O'Leary--unless she's prepared to say that she opposed the Democrat's Reverse the Raid on Student Aid campaign in 2006 and 2007 to reduce interest rates on federal loans, it should matter to her what her student borrowers pay for their loans. Why make them pay more than they have to? I bet she doesn't stand up at meetings with students and parents and tell them she believes they should pay unnecessarily high interest rates to fund another government program that they many not benefit from. I thought taxes were supposed to fund government programs.

• Missing the Point
• Posted by MDS on May 27, 2009 at 5:30pm EDT

• There are some points on the national level that seem to be sorely missed:

  1. Even by government estimates, the government will not have enough money to fund medicare in 10 years and social security in 30 (I believe it's 30). So, we're going to add another program onto that pile? The intent and purpose of the FFEL program in its original incarnation is to use private money to serve a public good. The lenders should profit from it, not OFF of student's, but from investing in student's to enrich their lives. They also have to deal with the risks of lending as well.

  2. The Federal Direct program being the only program simply put is socialism, nationalization, whatever you want to call it. The government taking over an industry to make a profit, not save money, but actually profit is socialism.

  3. Any student can receive certain funds through the Federal loan program. I don't feel as a taxpayer like funding any rich kid's unsubsidized Stafford loan to learn basket-weaving at the 40K a year school so he can join a frat and do beer bongs. For that matter, I don't like personally (as a taxpayer) funding any poor kid if he doesn't have the tools to be successful in school either...which nothing in any of this addresses (see #4).

  4. Finally, the Pell Grant being an entitlement while sounding noble and good does nothing to assist the middle-class. Additionally, it does nothing to prepare low-income students for higher education. So, all that does is address the issue of access, but nothing about the issues of preparation, retention, completion, etc.

  Either side's efficiencies can be argued for or against, the evils of lending can be argued, etc. What it comes down to is we miss the much larger picture..as usual.

• FINALLY!
• Posted by WP , OSFA on May 27, 2009 at 9:00pm EDT

• I think we could all safely state that federal student loans needs(ed) some changes, but the "savings" projected by the administration are so far from reality it's scary. The CBO scored at $94B, but the administration at $40B. Was that just a rounding error?

  Comparing default rates between the programs is ridiculous. FDLP is made up of a bunch of big state schools (with good CDRs). FFELP has been working hard with every proprietery and career school for years (with terrible CDRs). Wait until those truck driving schools that work on clock hours with trimester start dates start calling 1-800-4FEDAID... One FFELP company alone does as much business at DL! ONE...

  FFELP has created some real innovation and there are those that want to throw that out the window. What a travesty and for Ms. O'Leary to stand on her soapbox and preach STUDENT. If you really cared about the student and not just making your offices process easier, you'd choose FFELP every single time.

  Ask the 75%+ of schools that didn't go to FDLP in the last 15 years. Rediculous.

  I know it's nice to be in the catbird seat finally, but remember you'll be held accountable in 5 years when CDRs are back to 20%+ nationally. DL was the best thing that ever happened to FFELP. Competition benefits the consumer!

• Posted by philip lord , Principal at Reform U. on May 28, 2009 at 5:15am EDT

• kudos to those on this pro-ffelp site and publication for taking the stand that the majority of financial aid administrators support. Most major schools have switched to the Direct program - from Univ of California to Cal State System to Indiana U. to Purdue Univ.

  It seems this has become a community college issue as most of the selective majors have moved to the NDSLC.

  FFELP scandals continue where all six governor-appointed board members of the Connecticut Student Loan Foundation were dismissed by Connecticut Gov. Jodi Rell March 12 after state auditors found that the student loan agency had seriously mismanged it's funds.

  Now, the head of the NASFAA is under investigation by the District Attorney of San Francisco. Why can't FFELP associated entities stay out of scandals?

  ABC-7 San Francisco
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEzl8WzwsQE
  http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/07/MNJQ17FTEQ.DTL

• Remember the Students
• Posted by Anonymous on May 28, 2009 at 6:45am EDT

• Like has been mentioned in other comments, the students are the heart and core of this issue and I agree that eliminating FELP is in the best interest of the students. The word competition is thrown around as if the students really have real alternatives currently. First, many students and their parents are not versed in the whole student loan process to begin with and then they are escorted by financial aid officers to programs that may not be in their best interest. There is such a need to revamp the entire system that currently fails most students. How can students walk out of college with no job and $100,000 in debt (mostly private loans) for a liberal arts degree with little chance of a future that will allow the repayment of such loans. If you say a liberal arts degree is worthless, well, that's what I was told to go after by high school advisors as the degree that is most well rounded and most sought after by employers. If that isn't a failure of the system I don't know what is. And the thought of the private lenders providing student counseling is the funniest thing I have ever heard. The fox in charge of talking to the hens.......give me a break. I have experience with Direct Loans and FELP loans and, I find out, fully private loans and I can tell you that dealing with the private lender is, by far, the largest nightmare of my life. They are horrible and they are NOT looking out for the students in any way, shape or form. Let's get real here. I believe that not only should FELP be 100% eliminated, but all consumer protections should be restored to all student loans, including bankruptcy rights. You know, the same rights that you have for your mortgage, or your car loan or your personal loan or your vacation home, or any other consumer loan you might have.  Additionally, I feel that the persons in charge of this mess, Congress and the private lenders, should be held accountable for the damage done to students to date and that they should be made to correct the horrible situation that millions of borrowers are in as a direct result of special interests being placed ahead of the interests of borrowers. It's now time to correct this mess and that will only happen when the people who care about this make it know to the Congress that they will no longer put up with the way things currently are and insist that Congress correct the problem they created. If you care about this, please call your Congress members and let them know that talk is cheap and action is required and the time is NOW !!! 

• DL and FFEL
• Posted by Craig on May 28, 2009 at 7:45am EDT

• The primary reason that Congressional Budget Office ("CBO") finds more savings in this situation than Office of Management & Budget ("OMB") is that CBO does not consider consolidation loans to be new loan capital but rather a repayment plan option. For many years consolidation lenders would market consolidation loans to the direct loan Stafford and Plus borrowers, who have a better track record than the FFEL Stafford and Plus borrowers. The better track record in DL was possibly due to the low-default 4yr public and 4yr private institutions which predominate in direct lending. However, it could also be due to superior default aversion.
  The "crossover" consolidations which occurred for many years involved low risk borrowers being moved from DL to FFEL and high risk borrowers being moved from FFEL to DL (through both pre-default and post-default consolidations). Even with only a relative small proportion of each year's consolidations coming from previous FFEL defaults, it raised the "projected"/"estimated" future rate of DL consolidation defaults under the OMB way of doing things. However, they would have no impact on the CBO estimations, because CBO counts a DL consolidation default against FFEL if the borrower started out with a FFEL Stafford or Plus loan. In addition, CBO would count a FFEL consolidation loan in good standing as a successful DL repayment in progress if the borrower started out with a DL Stafford or Plus loan.

  The talking points we have seen continue to emphasize default aversion efforts in FFEL as if it were a well-supported argument. On the other hand, we have not seen a lot of information about the credit scoring methods that guarantors use to focus default aversion efforts. In addition, DL combines the lender and guarantor functions. In FFEL, it may be confusing to many borrowers to receive conflicting contacts from lender and guarantor early in delinquency.

  "College nights and other college awareness programs, as well as financial aid workshops" may be quite meritorious, but why should the federal taxpayer cover these guarantor expenses? If these programs stand on their own, why not go to Washington and argue for individual appropriations them? In addition, when DL tried these events, there was a lot of criticism. To create a level playing field, these "awareness programs" should be reviewed to ensure that they provide information from a variety of guarantors, not just the one leading the event, and also provide equal time for direct lending viewpoints.

  As far as "administration costs," a few million dollars in a trillion dollar program has long been a sideshow in the discussion. Even the most inefficient administration operation would not be able to come close to removing the huge advantage in the financing costs. In addition, FFEL has always been a much larger program than DL and, even with the opaque accounting which excludes many of FFEL's admin costs, the DL admin costs have been much lower. One large lender has an staff (including sales and administrative) many times the entire staff for all the federal student aid programs. This perhaps leads to the focus on the potential loss of jobs which may result from reducing the size of the FFEL program. Some federal taxpayers, however, may not want to pay for such a jobs program. And, if you have been following the articles over the past 10 or 15 years about lender/guarantor "assistance" to school personnel, including putting actual staff into school financial aid offices during "the busy season," despite being against the law (HEA), you will see another reason why financial aid offices have chosen FFEL over DL. A financial aid office focused entirely on the front end perhaps would be "pro-consumer" by choosing FFEL, but a financial aid office focused on the life of the loan and actually caring what happens to the borrower after disbursement would be "pro-consumer" to choose DL.

• Clarification
• Posted by FAO on May 28, 2009 at 9:15am EDT

• To Philip Lord: Please clarify how NASFAA is a "FFELP Related Entity"?

  NASFAA is not a lender. NASFAA is a professional Association.

  Further NASFAA represents ALL Financial Aid Officers's including those whose schools have chosen to go into DL.

  In regard to Dr. Day, the investigation is for activities that he was involved in from BEFORE he became NASFAA's head man, and which had nothing to do with student loans.

  "On May 6, 2009, "San Francisco District attorney's investigators raided City College of San Francisco on Wednesday, seeking evidence that college officials had illegally spent public money on donations to education-related political campaigns. A copy of a search warrant served on the college shows that investigators are scrutinizing the actions of former Chancellor Philip Day..."

  Check your facts please and stop spreading "guilt by association".

  Or perhaps by your last name you are guilty because of your intimate relationship with Sallie Mae's CEO.

• Clarifications
• Posted by LA Jerry , NSCS on May 28, 2009 at 10:00am EDT

• Anonymous (and others) - please clarify what you mean by "consumer protections". I see that phrase thrown about constantly on these forums. I was pretty sure that there are some consumer protections even for student loans, but maybe I'm wrong. For my education, could you please offer some specifics on the "consumer protections" you are advocating?

  Oh, and to be accurate, there are limited bankruptcy provisions for student loans.

  Lastly, Anonymous, could you explain your statement - "....should be made to correct the horrible situation that millions of borrowers are in..."? Are you advocating some kind of relief for borrowers? Even the vast majority who are in good-standing or have paid their loans in-full?

   

   

   

   

• Red-baiting...
• Posted by Bo Yerxa , Center Director at SNHU on May 28, 2009 at 3:30pm EDT

• I think this discussion could benefit if participants refrain from throwing around terms such as "socialist." Red-bating - or name-calling of any sort - has rarely functioned to improve dialogue...or governance.

• Posted on May 29, 2009 at 8:15am EDT

• Regardless of whether FFELP or DL is the right program, when is the true crux of the problem going to be addressed...the astronomical cost of higher education? Even students borrowing in the DL program often find it necessary to borrow private loans to supplement the government backed loans.That situation is unlikely to change until higher education becomes more affordable.

• DL cannot compare to FFELP servicing...
• Posted by J. at Private Servicing Industry on June 25, 2009 at 5:15am EDT

• Near the beginning of this discussion Frank made the comment: "When has it been in the public's interest to have private companies administer the public good?" The question itself is so ridiculous that I could not refrain from commenting. Would Frank and others prefer that the public interest be served by the government as opposed to private industry? Let's take a moment to examine how well that is working...

  If you had an important package to deliver, would you trust the U.S. Postal Service or UPS/FedEx first? When was the last time you had a smooth visit to the DMV on a lunch break with time to spare after leaving? If you are like me and under the age of 40, how much faith do you personally place into the Social Security Administration to ensure your livelihood? Do you feel that you would obtain a better education through the majority of public schools over a private education? If you were to be terminated from your job tomorrow, do you trust the Unemployment Office to provide immediate support to you as opposed to being placed on a waiting list? Do you feel that you would receive better medical treatment as a veteran from Veteran's Affairs or through private medical care? These are only a few glaring examples.

  The fact of the matter is that there is not a single government agency that can provide the same exceptional service and quality to people as the private sector. Our great country was built upon the notion of private industry and growth for individuals, not masses being spoon fed by the government as the currently extremely left-leaning political machine is attempting. Some have argued that we should not call it a 'socialist' agenda -- but as a proud American I am not afraid to call a spade a spade. By "cutting out" the private servicing industry for DL not only will thousands of jobs be lost from FFELP lenders/servicers and through guarantor agencies, but the government would have to create an all new infrastructure to service for DL loans which would ultimately be at a much higher cost to all involved (the private sector can buy a hammer for $10, for the government it costs $20,000).

  The level of customer service and support that a person would obtain through DL servicing could not hold a light to the dedication and devotion of private servicers within the FFELP industry with over 40 years of experience and dedication to their field. There is absolutely no comparison.

  It seems that the current administration is in the process of supplanting American industry with bigger government. Indeed, we have all seen how very well this has worked in the past. So, tell me Frank, how cold does it really get in China this time of year?

  j.

• Blame and Facts
• Posted by Danny D , FFEL Employee on July 9, 2009 at 10:15am EDT

• I have read every comment and every response and I can tell that people seriously care about the two options students have to choose from. Debate is always good to get the facts out.

  On the Direct Lending side it seems they want to see FFEL go away completely and they think that is the right answer. They dont see a need for competition. They also seem to claim FFEL makes huge profits off the backs of the student and parent borrowers. If you claim you are for the student then I suggest you work with your schools and work to lower the tuition at each of your institutions. Lenders can only lend what is certified and what the federal limits allow. The cost of a loan to the student from Direct Lending and FFEL is the same. The student doesnt pay more for one program than they do for another. I also think ALL schools have failed to educate students and parents on the financial aid process. The Lenders and Guarantors are easy scape goats but the truth is that most parents and students dont know the difference between subsidized and un-subsidized or even know what a PLUS loan is! I have worked at many schools doing educational events and I am amazed that the borrowers do not know the student loan process at all. Are the evil lenders to blame for that also? The financial aid process always starts at the school! I also keep hearing about scandals with the lenders and guarantors and preferred lender lists? In all businesses there are bad apples or inaprpriate behaviour but the percentage in the FFEL community is very small. Check the actual numbers. The comment about NASFAA president, Mr. Day were about violations HE had while working for a school.

  I dont have experience working with Direct Lending so I cant talk to the points of it's benefits. I can, however say that I would never call for the elimination of Direct Lending or call for the elimination for the student to have a choice. We can all argue for or against each program but the truth is competition is neccesary. Competition has and will continue to help the industry. E-sign and online applications would not be here or be as far advanced with out two programs competing.

  The choice to go to Direct Lending and eliminate FFELP needs to be debated. Debated just like eveyone is debating in these posts. The proposal out there right now to shift all lending to the government was not debate and it needs to be looked at and there needs to be a compromise to use both programs to benefit the students. CCRA was passed and without debate and that is what created an issue with FFEL lenders. It reduced their margins and then the credit crunch hit and many FFEL lenders had to exit the business. The government made those changes without debating and discussing with all entities involved and without fully examining what those changes would do. The student is the one that was hurt when they couldnt get loans or had to switch lenders.

  Both programs need to be around. Both programs need to be improved. EVERYONE needs the ability to have a CHOICE. There is not one instance in life where we dont deserve to have options and the right to choose what is best for us. Students get to choose the college they attend and they deserve the right to choose the way they want to finance their college education. That should not be taken away!!