Prominent university says government's proposal to deregulate tuition will allow it to give scholarships to a third of its students; critics say Sydney's plan will help it cream students from other universities.
College admissions is already a high-stakes, daunting process. There are so many moving parts students have to deal with: essays, letters of recommendation, financial aid, interviews, standardized testing — not to mention keeping up with high school classes and activities.
In my previous role as a college counselor for Bottom Line (a college access and success program for first-generation, low-income students), I worked with a cohort of high school students from start to finish in their application process. I was there to answer questions, give responsible advice, help make college accessible, and ease the stress of the process. My students were often worried about making mistakes -- as evidenced by the countless frantic phone calls and emails I would receive -- and now I have to wonder if their biggest mistake was trusting that their applications would be reviewed fairly.
I asked several of the students I worked with what they made of the situation.
For Kimberlee Cruz, a student I counseled in high school and college, having to worry about the FAFSA position would have been a huge concern. “It would have stressed me out, to worry that my fifth choice could have given me terrible aid just because I didn’t list them first. What if I didn’t get into my first choice? Would that mean I would have no options with good aid?”
Financial aid was the most important part of the application process for Cruz, a junior at Worcester State University, as well as the part that was most confusing. “Regardless of the position, you’re interested in the school; otherwise, it wouldn’t be on your FAFSA.”
Most of the students I have worked with wouldn’t think twice about the order they listed colleges on the FAFSA. For some, sure, it was probably in the order of their preference, but for others, maybe the order was alphabetical, geographical, FAFSA code numerical (O.K., probably not that last one, but you get the idea).
And why should they think twice? There’s not any indication on FAFSA that the order matters or that it will be shared.
Daniel Figueiredo, another former student, was shocked to find out that some colleges use information in this manner. “I think it’s completely unethical. To infer something like preference based on a list, it’s sneaky and can really mess up someone’s future -- it shouldn’t be evaluated.”
Figueiredo, a senior at Worcester State, said that he applied to a few reach colleges at the last minute, institutions he wasn’t sure he could get into but wanted to try. “I thought, what the heck, I’ll do it. Maybe I had a chance, but I put them farther down on my FAFSA list since I added them to my list later than some more attainable schools. I did get waitlisted for two of them, and now I’m wondering if the FAFSA position played a role.”
What students should focus on with the FAFSA is having accurate information, having all their colleges added, and meeting all of the priority deadlines. Financial aid can be confusing enough for students and their families, and for many, the weight of their future completely rests on the aid packages that schools offer.
Throwing FAFSA position in the mix is another step for applicants to remember, another potential barrier to access. And I wonder, would an alphabetical or random order even make a difference, or would schools interpret the list as preferential anyway?
Maybe it’s just me, but a college taking its FAFSA position into consideration for admissions and aid decisions seems like a popularity contest. I know that colleges want to fill their classes, that admissions recruiters have goals to meet, that everyone wants the best and the brightest to want to attend their institution. But holding a FAFSA position against a student -- especially since many students don’t realize that something so arbitrary could greatly affect them -- seems in direct opposition to the ultimate goal of getting students to attend and graduate from college.
If FAFSA continues to share this information, colleges engaging in this practice really need to reconsider their position on student access and success. And students thinking about applying to these institutions might want to reconsider as well.
Ali Lincoln is a project director for TVP Communications, a national public relations agency with expertise in higher education.
The ubiquitous coffee chain Starbucks has received a great deal of positive media attention for its announcement that it will provide full reimbursement for tuition and fees of employees at company-owned stores who enroll in one of Arizona State University’s online bachelor’s degree programs. Education Secretary Arne Duncan even made an appearance at the program’s unveiling, alongside Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz and Arizona State President Michael Crow. But, while I applaud Starbucks for providing financial assistance to students who want to continue their education, the conditions in the model will result in fewer employees successfully completing bachelor’s degrees. Below are the reasons not all employees will benefit.
Only juniors and seniors will get a full reimbursement. The frequently asked questions document on the Starbucks website notes that there will only be a “partial scholarship” for employees who have not at least achieved junior status (likely 60 credits earned). ASU Online’s tuition rates are between $480 and $543 per credit hour, meaning that credits taken at the local community college will probably be a fraction of the cost of the ASU Online credits after partial reimbursement. This means that students are less likely to use the Starbucks program for the first 60 credits, although the promise of future reimbursement may be enough to induce Starbucks employees to go back to college.
Discussion of ASU/Starbucks
On Friday, Arizona State President Michael Crow will discuss the university's new partnership on This Week @ Inside Higher Ed, our weekly audio newscast. Click here to find out more about This Week or here to sign up for an email link to each program.
Students are not reimbursed until they complete 21 credits. This policy was designed in order to encourage completion, as the goal is to motivate students to continue their studies until they are reimbursed. However, given the per-credit cost, a student not receiving any grants from the federal government would have to pay about $10,000 out of pocket (or borrow that amount) before being reimbursed. ASU Online recommends that students take two or three 3-credit classes during each 7.5-week class window, meaning that a continuously enrolled full-time student who started in August would probably complete seven classes by March or May of the following year. Students can also qualify for reimbursement by enrolling part-time, but they may take two years to complete the 21 credits necessary for reimbursement. This also provides a strong incentive for students to stay at Starbucks to claim the benefit, which can limit their mobility as employees but may be worthwhile given the potential value of the benefit.
The delay between paying tuition and fees and being reimbursed introduces substantial risk for students. A student who is willing to pay up to $10,000 and get reimbursed later only if successful likely has a higher tolerance for risk, is more willing to borrow, and is more likely to complete courses than a student who is hesitant to participate in the program. This means that the Starbucks employees who participate in the program as currently constructed are probably from higher-income families with more social and cultural capital — potentially minimizing the social mobility the program offers. Reimbursing students after each successfully completed course would help mitigate this risk and reduce the amount of money students have to pay upfront.
Reimbursements by Starbucks take place after other grant aid is applied, making the company’s contribution smaller. Students are required to file the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) in order to participate in the program and any grant aid received will be applied before Starbucks makes its contribution. Consider the case of a student with a zero expected family contribution, representing the greatest level of financial need, who enrolls for 12 credits in a semester. Her tuition at $500 per credit would be $12,000 for the academic year. She is eligible for the maximum Pell Grant of $5,730 in the 2014-15 academic year, which is applied before any aid from Starbucks. This leaves $6,270 uncovered by the Pell Grant, but Arizona State is offering scholarships of $4,840 per year to all Starbucks employees. The resulting $1,430 would be paid by Starbucks if the student didn't receive any other grants or scholarships. This is an admirable contribution, but most of the burden of financing the student is not on Starbucks.
Online education may not be right for everyone, yet it is the only option funded. It is far easier for Starbucks to work with one college than hundreds for administrative purposes. However, the lack of choice in the program may not be best for all students. ASU Online does offer about 40 majors, but they are all online — and research suggests that online courses may not work as well as face-to-face courses for students from lower-income families. While I don’t know enough about ASU’s programs to pass judgment on their quality, some students may not be interested in enrolling online even if the quality is high and the cost to the student is low.
All of these factors suggest that the percentage of Starbucks employees who successfully complete a bachelor’s degree as a result of the tuition reimbursement program will be fairly low. Starbucks should be commended for offering this benefit to its employees, but policymakers shouldn’t expect this program to substantially move the college completion rate dial in its current form.
Robert Kelchen (@rkelchen) is an assistant professor in the department of education leadership, management and policy at Seton Hall University. He blogs at Kelchen on Education. All opinions are his own.
The student loan problem seems clear enough on the surface: students are incurring oversized student debt, and they are defaulting on that debt and threatening their ability to access future credit. The approaches to student loan debt collection are fraught with problems, including improper recovery tactics and informational asymmetry regarding repayment options.
But the current public policy conversations miss key issues that contribute to the debt mess, leading to proffered solutions that also miss their mark.
Start with these key facts about student loans:
The reported student debt loans represent averages, yet the amounts owed can differ dramatically from student to student. That is why solutions like the mandated debt calculator on college websites or the current College Scorecard do not resolve the issues; the disclosure of generic information does not impact student choice meaningfully.
Many of the problematic student loans are held by individuals who left college before graduation, meaning they have incurred “debt without diploma.” This reality distorts default statistics, making their indicia of school quality misleading. The cost of education is not necessarily commensurate with the quality of the education received, meaning some students pay more and get less, and we do not have an adequate system for measuring educational quality other than accreditation, which is a deeply flawed process.
Finally, students and their families are woefully unaware of the myriad repayment options, and therefore forgo existing benefits or are taken advantage of by loan servicers. This occurs because we de-link conversations of “front-end” costs of higher education from “back-end” repayment options and opportunities; students and their families are scared off by the front end without knowing that there is meaningful back-end relief.
Given these facts, it becomes clearer why some of the current government reform suggestions are misguided. Two illustrations:
First, evaluating colleges on a rating system based on the earning levels of their graduates assumes the overwhelming majority of students graduate and that the employment chosen will be high-paying. But we know that not to be true, and for good reason: some students proudly enter public service or other low-paying but publicly beneficial employment. And, in today’s economy, not all students can find employment directly correlated to their field of study.
We also know that those from high-income families have greater networking opportunities, given family connections. Yes, some schools offer degrees with little or no value, but the solution to student loan indebtedness does not rest on an earnings threshold.
Second, looking at loan default rates as a measure of the success of a college misses that many colleges welcome students from lower income quartiles, and these students have less collegiate success – understandably, although obviously many are working to improve these statistics. The fact that some of these students do not progress to a degree is not a sign of institutional failure any more than student success at elite institutions is a guarantee of those institutions’ quality. One approach to consider is linking default rates with the types of students being served by an institution. But one thing that should not change, to the dismay of some: many of the government student loans should not be based on credit worthiness.
Not that many years ago, private lenders dominated both the student lending and home mortgage markets. This created obvious parallels between lending in these two spheres. Lenders overpriced for risk, provided monies to borrowers who were not credit-worthy, and had loan products with troubling features like sizable front-end fees, high default interest rates and aggressive debt collection practices.
In both markets, there was an embedded assumption: real estate values would continue to rise and well-paying employment opportunities would be plentiful for college graduates.
Then several things happened. The federal government took over the student loan market, cutting out the private lender as the middleman on government loans on both the front and back end. The economy took a nosedive that led to diminished home values and lower employment opportunities. And, when the proverbial bubble burst in the home lending markets, lenders sought to foreclose, only to find that their collateral had diminished in value.
For student loans, the bubble has not burst and, despite hyperbole to the contrary, it is unlikely to burst because the government -- not the private sector -- is the lender. Indeed, this market is intentionally not focused on credit worthiness; if anything, it awards more dollars to those who have weak credit, specifically to enable educational opportunity.
And while Congress can debate the interest rates charged on student loans, the size of Pell Grants and the growing default rates, it is highly improbable that the student loan market will be privatized any time soon.
But, for the record, there are already signs that private lenders and venture capitalists have re-entered or are ready to re-enter this market, for better or worse. And if the government’s financial aid offerings are or become less beneficial than those in the open market, we will see a resurgence of private lending offered to students and their families. One caution: history tells us that the risks of the private student loan market are substantial; all one has to do is look at lending improprieties before and since the government became the lender-in-chief and the non-student loan predatory lending that targets our least financially stable borrowers.
There are things that can and should be done to improve the government-run student-lending market to encourage our most vulnerable students to pursue higher education at institutions that will serve them well. Here are five timely and doable suggestions worth considering now:
(1) Lower the interest rates on government-issued subsidized Stafford loans. The government is making considerable profit on student loans, and we need to encourage quality, market-sensitive, fiscally wise borrowing, most particularly among vulnerable students. Student loans to our most financially risky students should remain without regard to credit worthiness (the worthiness of the academic institution is point 2). Otherwise, we will be left with educational opportunity available only for the rich.
(2) Improve the accreditation process so that accreditors assess more thoughtfully and fairly the institutions they govern, whether that accreditation is regional or national. Currently, there are vastly too many idiosyncrasies in the process, including favoritism, violation of due process and fair dealing, and questionable competency of some of the accreditors. And the government has not been sufficiently proactive in recognizing accreditors, despite clear authority to do so.
(3) Simplify (as was done successfully with the FAFSA) the repayment options. There are too many options and too many opportunities for students to err in their selection. We know that income-based repayment is under-utilized, and students become ostriches rather than unraveling and working through the options actually available. Mandated exit interviews are not a “teachable moment” for this information; we need to inform students more smartly. Consideration should be given to information at the time repayment kicks in --- usually six months post-graduation.
(4) Incentivize college and universities to work on post-graduation default rates (and repayment options) by establishing programs where they (the educational institutions) proactively reach out to their graduates to address repayment options, an initiative we will be trying on our own campus. Improvement in institutional default rates could be structured to enable increased institutional access to federal monies for work-study or SEOG, the greater the improvement, the greater the increase.
The suggestion, then, is contrary to the proffered government approach: taking away benefits. The suggestion proffered here uses a carrot, not a stick – offering more aid rather than threatening to take away aid. Importantly, we cannot mandate a meaningful minimum default rate because default rates are clearly correlated to the vulnerability of the student population, and we do not want to disincentivize institutions from serving first-generation, underrepresented minority and low-income students.
(5) Create a new financial product for parents/guardians/family members/friends who want to borrow to assist their children (or those whom they are raising or supporting even if not biological or step children) in progressing through higher education, replacing the current Parent Plus Loan. The current Parent Plus loan product is too expensive (both at initiation and in terms of interest rates) and more recently too keyed to credit worthiness. The individuals who most need this product are those who are more vulnerable. And the definition of “parent” is vastly too narrow given the contours of American families today.
Home ownership and education are both part of the American dream. Both benefit the individuals and larger society. How we foster both is, however, vastly different. We need to stop shouting about the shared crisis and see how we can truly help students and their families access higher education rather than making them run for the proverbial hills.
Karen Gross is president of Southern Vermont College and a former policy adviser to the U.S. under secretary of education.