A non-profit organization dedicated to the eradication of all student loan debt through activism, education, and legislation; because student loan debt is dangerous to the US economy and to the health and well-being of individual Americans and their families. CRYN JOHANNSEN, Founder & Executive Director
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Must Read: Deanne Loonin's Recent Piece On The Growth Of Proprietary Loans
Deanne Loonin has written some superb pieces for Higher Ed Watch. She's done a particularly outstanding job on discussing the way in which the Department of Education has an orientation towards lenders and collectors, instead of borrowers. In a recent piece, she writes about the consequences of the growth of student loans to fund degrees at for-profit schools.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Quick Post: Are We Surprised By The WSJ's Report On The Worsening Of Student-Loan Default Rates?
By June 2012, outstanding student loan debt (federal and private) will hit a staggering $1 trillion. So with that in mind, does it comes as any surprise that student-loan default rates have worsened?
It shouldn't.
I wonder if defenders of the student loan sharking industry, like Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska or Representative Virginia Foxx of North Carolina, give a damned about default rates. Probably not. (Nelson is in bed with Nelnet, and Foxx is a huge supporter of the banks and deregulation. And as we're all aware, deregulation has done wonders for the health of the U.S. economy. I think Foxx might be onto something).
It shouldn't.
I wonder if defenders of the student loan sharking industry, like Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska or Representative Virginia Foxx of North Carolina, give a damned about default rates. Probably not. (Nelson is in bed with Nelnet, and Foxx is a huge supporter of the banks and deregulation. And as we're all aware, deregulation has done wonders for the health of the U.S. economy. I think Foxx might be onto something).
"Well, sure! I'm up for sale, Mr. Nelnet. You betcha."
Gues Post: Third Tier Reality's Nando Educates Utah Legislator Carl Wimmer
Nando, the author of Third Tier Reality, is AEM's newest board member. Nando and I are working on a number of collaborative projects, and I invited him to share this piece about Carl Wimmer. (If you are be interested in being a guest writer for AEM, please send an email with your ideas to ccrynjohannsen@gmail.com).
“I ask Representative Wimmer to tell me why . . . we need to put these students in a different class – what makes them so different from other families who also pay their taxes and attend the same schools?”
Nando is the author of the blog Third Tier Reality, a site devoted to informing prospective law students about the dangers of attending law school. He is the first person in his family to graduate from college. Not only did he graduate from college, he went on to obtain a law degree. Nando is also on the Board of All Education Matters, Inc. His opinions are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of All Education Matters or Ms. Cryn Johannsen.
As you can see, the extent of Carl Wimmer’s formal education is Utah P.O.S.T. (Peace Officer Standards and Training) and Salt Lake Community College.
Here is a bill that seeks to repeal Utah Code §53B-8-106 (Resident tuition requirements)
Here is a chart showing the undergrad tuition and fees for a Utah resident, from two years ago. Such a full-time student paid $2642.34 in tuition and fees for the 2008-2009 school year. This represents $5,284.68 for the entire year.
Now, a full-time, in-state student would pay $3,136.82 in tuition and fees for the current semester – or $6,273.64 for the current academic year. That represents an 18.7% increase for in-state tuition, in two years. In-state tuition has increased enough, over the last two years.
Now let’s take a look at the undergrad tuition rate for non-resident students at the University of Utah.
A non-resident taking 15 course hours will pay $9,920.57 in tuition and fees for the current Spring semester. This translates into $19,841.14 for the 2010-2011 school year. Therefore, the out-of-state student pays 216% more in tuition and fees than a Utah resident attending this school.
I fully understand that states have an interest in subsidizing the tuition of those students who they believe will contribute to the state’s tax base for several years. However, this legislator wants to make the children of undocumented aliens pay out of state tuition to attend a state college or university. Listen, Carl. I’m sorry that you did not manage anything higher than some coursework at a community college. But why take this out on children of those who have contributed to the state’s tax base for several years – or, in some cases, decades?!
I recognize that you want the state to remain “business-friendly.” By the way, most of your corporate and small business friends love the endless supply of cheap, foreign labor. Why should the business owners and corporate class be allowed to exploit these workers and lower the overall wage structure of this state, while the children of non-legal permanent residents pay through the nose for a college education?!?!
Here is a sampling of what other decent people think of Wimmer’s bill:
“I ask Representative Wimmer to tell me why . . . we need to put these students in a different class – what makes them so different from other families who also pay their taxes and attend the same schools?”
This subsidy is not going to people who just entered the state, Wimmer!
“I ask Representative Wimmer to tell me why . . .we need to put these students in a different class – what makes them so different from other families who also pay their taxes and attend the same schools?”
Apparently, Carl is concerned that a child of non-citizens will obtain more education that he has attained.
Lastly, why should someone from this state be treated the same as a person from Washington State who has no intention of staying in Utah – just because their parents came here illegally, Carl?! Can you put your “extensive education” to use and answer that question?
Oh, but Carl’s bill includes the following language, on page 3, line 79:
“This section shall be enforced without regard to race, religion, gender, ethnicity, or national origin.”
That settles it then, right?!
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Poll: Would you be more likely to donate for a website or online advertising?
I recently had an outstanding and productive conversation with my Board Members. We obviously discussed a number of ways to raise funds for AEM, Inc., so that the organization can be more effective in raising public awareness about the student lending crisis and carry out more lobbying efforts in D.C. (I was there a few weeks ago, and it went very well, but our presence is desperately needed there, and on a full-time basis).
That said, if we were to carry out a "Fast Cash Fund Raising Campaign," would you be more likely to donate to (a) a website for AEM or (b) online advertising about our non-profit and the student lending crisis? Why or why not?
Thanks for your sharing your opinion!
That said, if we were to carry out a "Fast Cash Fund Raising Campaign," would you be more likely to donate to (a) a website for AEM or (b) online advertising about our non-profit and the student lending crisis? Why or why not?
Thanks for your sharing your opinion!
What would The Dude do? Would he write a check for a website or online advertising?
Monday, February 7, 2011
Highlighting the Headlines: What Are The Mainstream Media Outlets Saying About Student Loan Debt?
Highlighting The Headlines is part of a new bi-monthly series at AEM that will allow readers to explore relevant links about student loan debt. This series will also cover the big players in the industry, i.e., Sallie Mae, Nelnet, the for-profits, etc. This way, readers will be able to analyze how mainstream media outlets are framing the student lending crisis. Additionally, in order to save readers time, I will provide annotations to most of the links. That way, you'll be able to quickly decide if you wish to read the entire article or not. Keep in mind that your generous contributions help keep AEM, Inc. going, and allows us to expose the truth about the student lending crisis. So instead of simply being a reader, become a reading-contributor. Make a difference today and donate (you can contribute via Paypal or send checks/money orders to All Education Matters, P.O. Box 170232 Arlington, Texas 76003). Your donations keep this fledgling non-profit alive. Thanks to those of you who continue to donate on a regular basis!
Most of the stories about student loan debt are poorly framed and allow readers to criticize and blame the debtors. For instance, when the NYT covered a story about loan forgiveness plans being canned in several states, they highlighted a Kentucky couple. The couple both enrolled to become teachers, were promised loan forgiveness, but ended up with the bill. Luckily for the couple it was just a mere $100,000. No biggie, right? The couple wasn't alone. Nearly 8,000 people were basically misled in the fine Bluegrass State. They too were told, "oh, uh, sorry. We don't have the money to pay for the education you just received. Yeah . . . uh, so you're gonna need to pay it. Thanks!"
Chances are Kentucky grossly mishandled money, and that is why the funds behind such programs dried up. Maybe if anyone bothered to investigate (hey, Feds, where are you when we need you?), maybe some pilfering would be discovered? I also hate how this messes with my images of a bucolic state filled with horseys. Sucks.
But I digress. The point is, this article allowed readers to trash the Kentucky couple. Thanks to the f--in' NYT, they took a picture of the couple inside their house, in the living room, with a flat screen TV on the wall. Somehow they thought this was a great picture to include with the article. So you can guess what people said in response.
Let's see how the outlets have been covering student loan stories in recent days (these reporters, overall, did a good job of covering the issue):
"Chase pulls about-face on military loans: Bank ends military deferrals on student loans, then reverses decision" (Lisa Myers and Sarah Heidapour, MSNBC.com, February 7, 2011)
Oh, you gotta love 'em! Chase originally decided to put an end to deferring loans on student loan debt for soldiers on tour. (I recently wrote about a soldier whose loans went into default while he was at war). Luckily, they decided to can the plan and have returned to the original option. How patriotic of them! You go, Chase! Way to be a good, Amurikun company!
"For-profit colleges face federal crackdown" (Walter Hamilton, Los Angeles Times, February 6, 2011)
This piece begins with a story about a woman named Chelsi Miller. Ms. Miller is a single mother who lives near Salt Lake City. Everest University, a for-profit, was the key to entering the medical field. Or so Ms. Miller thought. A recruiter at Everest told her that the credits she earned there could later be applied to completing a four-year degree at the University of Utah. Well, that turned out to be wrong!
Miller, who now owes $30,000 in student loan debt, said "I got completely taken advantage of, and now I'm struggling to pay the bill for it . . . I got sold my degree by a used-car salesman. I got a lemon." I'd say she got more than just one lemon.
"For-profit colleges spend millions to beat regulation attempts" (Liz Goodwin, Yahoo!, February 4, 2011)
It's so hard to choose my favorite quote from this article about the for-profit poops!
Ain't it nice to know how much money these you-know-whats are spending on lobbying for the continued flow of federal funds? In 2010 the twits spent $6 million to ensure their continued rape of the poor, those with low-incomes, and minority students. In addition, Goodwin writes, "for-profit colleges also spent millions on congressional candidates' campaigns in the 2009-2010 election cycle—with more than $100,000 going to GOP Rep. John Kline of Minnesota, who is now the chair of House Education Committee" Good for them and Mr. Kline. That's clearly money well spent.
Related Links
"High Default Rate Prompts 'Major Shift' At Kaplan University" (Bonnie Washuk, Sun Journal, February 6, 2011)
"Professional jobs harder to get, college grads find" (Mike Kilen, DesMoinesRegister.com, February 5, 2011)
"Sallie Mae, Our Favorite Gal" (Cryn Johannsen, AEM, January 20, 2011)
Most of the stories about student loan debt are poorly framed and allow readers to criticize and blame the debtors. For instance, when the NYT covered a story about loan forgiveness plans being canned in several states, they highlighted a Kentucky couple. The couple both enrolled to become teachers, were promised loan forgiveness, but ended up with the bill. Luckily for the couple it was just a mere $100,000. No biggie, right? The couple wasn't alone. Nearly 8,000 people were basically misled in the fine Bluegrass State. They too were told, "oh, uh, sorry. We don't have the money to pay for the education you just received. Yeah . . . uh, so you're gonna need to pay it. Thanks!"
Chances are Kentucky grossly mishandled money, and that is why the funds behind such programs dried up. Maybe if anyone bothered to investigate (hey, Feds, where are you when we need you?), maybe some pilfering would be discovered? I also hate how this messes with my images of a bucolic state filled with horseys. Sucks.
But I digress. The point is, this article allowed readers to trash the Kentucky couple. Thanks to the f--in' NYT, they took a picture of the couple inside their house, in the living room, with a flat screen TV on the wall. Somehow they thought this was a great picture to include with the article. So you can guess what people said in response.
Let's see how the outlets have been covering student loan stories in recent days (these reporters, overall, did a good job of covering the issue):
"Chase pulls about-face on military loans: Bank ends military deferrals on student loans, then reverses decision" (Lisa Myers and Sarah Heidapour, MSNBC.com, February 7, 2011)
Oh, you gotta love 'em! Chase originally decided to put an end to deferring loans on student loan debt for soldiers on tour. (I recently wrote about a soldier whose loans went into default while he was at war). Luckily, they decided to can the plan and have returned to the original option. How patriotic of them! You go, Chase! Way to be a good, Amurikun company!
"For-profit colleges face federal crackdown" (Walter Hamilton, Los Angeles Times, February 6, 2011)
This piece begins with a story about a woman named Chelsi Miller. Ms. Miller is a single mother who lives near Salt Lake City. Everest University, a for-profit, was the key to entering the medical field. Or so Ms. Miller thought. A recruiter at Everest told her that the credits she earned there could later be applied to completing a four-year degree at the University of Utah. Well, that turned out to be wrong!
Miller, who now owes $30,000 in student loan debt, said "I got completely taken advantage of, and now I'm struggling to pay the bill for it . . . I got sold my degree by a used-car salesman. I got a lemon." I'd say she got more than just one lemon.
"For-profit colleges spend millions to beat regulation attempts" (Liz Goodwin, Yahoo!, February 4, 2011)
It's so hard to choose my favorite quote from this article about the for-profit poops!
Ain't it nice to know how much money these you-know-whats are spending on lobbying for the continued flow of federal funds? In 2010 the twits spent $6 million to ensure their continued rape of the poor, those with low-incomes, and minority students. In addition, Goodwin writes, "for-profit colleges also spent millions on congressional candidates' campaigns in the 2009-2010 election cycle—with more than $100,000 going to GOP Rep. John Kline of Minnesota, who is now the chair of House Education Committee" Good for them and Mr. Kline. That's clearly money well spent.
Related Links
"High Default Rate Prompts 'Major Shift' At Kaplan University" (Bonnie Washuk, Sun Journal, February 6, 2011)
"Professional jobs harder to get, college grads find" (Mike Kilen, DesMoinesRegister.com, February 5, 2011)
"Sallie Mae, Our Favorite Gal" (Cryn Johannsen, AEM, January 20, 2011)
"Well, gee, you don't say? It seems there might be a student lending crisis! You're one smart dame."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)