USNews: Financial Aid Blunders

Paying for College
61

<p>Which is to Amherst’s moral credit. One of the stranger aspects of the issue is that the elite and most costly schools have noted the adverse effects of high education costs upon certain populations, and are moving to counteract those effects. </p>

<p>They may do this to counteract bad pr, as some of these same schools had been caught in the NYS AG investigations of kickbacks and etc. Or they may do it because some of their academic stars, such as Dr. Warren, have raised awareness about the issue. But they are making these reforms. </p>

<p>The state schools are caught in a moral vise, insofar as cutbacks in direct federal and state support has made them increasingly reliant on the edudebt industry. That condition in itself has also ensured that tuition costs have risen, as there is little impetus for fiscal discipline. Even worse, it has been a condition which has widened a conceptual gulf between the state schools and the populations which they were established to serve. </p>

<p>Because of their new reliance on redistributed corporate money* (loans), too often state universities have forgotten or rationalized away the social costs of such a system upon their own students. And this problem is even less morally excusable when such gems as unneeded trophy buildings are considered. </p>

<p>*We do have to realize that in much of the US student financing system, what is loaned by these companies is effectively backed or even provided for by public money. So it is a massive form of resource redistribution, as is very evident from the recent millions given to these companies to ‘ensure liquidity’, and the billions they have made from the government and students. So it is at its core a form of resource redistribution flowing upwards. From a system which was originally established to benefit the common. </p>

<p>As such it will be much more difficult for the state schools to begin and expand the very necessary reforms begun at the Ivy’s. The tragedy is that the population served by the state schools is in the greatest need for such reforms.</p>

62

<p>mommusic,</p>

<p>I am actually still attending college and will be completing my Bachelor’s Degree about April 2009. My career, which I will not be changing is Financial Aid. I’ve been in FA for about 4 years now. When I complete my Bachelor’s degree, I will start on my Masters…both will be in Business Administration since there is no direct degree for my chosen profession. Once I have my Master’s I plan on becoming a Director of FA. Also, I chose now to attend college, despite my low salary because as a Director I can make more thn $60k per year. Also, I have also been promised a pay increase for my current position once I have completed my Bachelor’s. I chose this profession because I can receive my Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees for free through my institution. I did get my Associates degree using Stafford Loans and have to take out loans to cover my books, fees and other education expenses…up to $30K in loans already. If I can convince my children, they can also attend college for free…but only at the tiny, private LAC that I work at.</p>

<p>Galoisien,</p>

<p>For some students it may be humanly possible…but not for my daughter. She just completed her Freshman year of HS and had 2 F’s. She isn’t serious about school and really doesn’t care about achieving a high GPA. I even suggested she begin studying for the PSAT…she said the study guide was toooo boring and a waste of her time. Given the circumstances and her attitude…50k in grants/scholarships is impossible.</p>

63

<p>Nikkil, </p>

<p>Hopefully your plans will go well for you. And as a future financial aid director your current condition might give you a better assessment of what the most recent and coming generations will be facing in regards to their educational costs. As faculty I have advised students to be very, very careful in pursuing their education. However, and I hate to say this, under current conditions many would be better off not even entering higher education. </p>

<p>“I did get my Associates degree using Stafford Loans and have to take out loans to cover my books, fees and other education expenses…up to $30K in loans already.” </p>

<p>And that kind of unfortunate situation is exactly why so many, including myself are so very concerned about whole classes of people being priced out of higher education. Or being economically damned after the fact by their choice to participate in higher education. With some of the larger and less ethical loan companies, that 30,000 could easily be doubled via hidden fees, late charges, and penalties and that’s not even considering the effects of deferments. These tricks are an open secret, and recorded in the transcripts of CEO/board meetings that several have posted here, and hence are an admitted tactic of the edudebt people. </p>

<p>Plus on a very basic level, how did we ever allow costs for public education to escalate to the level which 30,000 some dollars can be levied and a Bachelors isn’t even completed yet? Granted some of your educational costs seem to have been covered by your employer, but what about those who do not benefit from such programs?</p>

<p>For whatever its worth, I’m terminal and a prof. But many of my generation consider such a track to be a mistake insofar as most have difficulty paying the exorbitantly high loan fees compared to relatively sparse academic incomes. And in that paradigm god help the adjuncts because the system which uses them certainly will not.</p>

<p>And eventually this problem will ensure a lack of properly qualified profs in higher education. If current trends continue, future students may look at their profs, see their situation, and realize a career in education could be little more than a state of educated indentured bondage.</p>

64

<p>Thing is, I chose to take out the $30k in loans…I probably culd have gotten away with only needing half of that amount to cover direct expenses. And this is where the real problem lies. Breaking it down, about $15K of my existing loan debt was taken out for my Bachelor’s degree…of which I pay NO tuition for…and I know I have not spent $15k in books and fees. The other $15k that was taken out for my Associates degree covered much more than the direct costs of my education as well. Had I chosen to borrow only what I needed, I would probably graduate with my Bachelor’s with only about $8k in debt…which given that both schools are four-year privates and I am a working adult, with no SAT or ACT scores and haven’t been in HS for almost 15 years. Most scholarships and institutional grants are designed strictly for traditional students enrolling fresh out of high school.</p>

<p>And I see these types of decisions EVERY day. The Masters program at my institution costs a mere $20k. Students are eligible for $20,500 each year of our two year program. And many choose to take out the whole $41,000. Now, we educate our students with the information they need to realize they do not need the entire loan…we even provide them with the information again when they receive their $7k to $10k of excess funds. We encourage ALL our students to borrow wisely. However, as many have stated to me…given the ease of taking out a Stafford Loan and the relatively low interest rates, compared to the private consumer loans, they feel as though they are getting a GREAT deal…which is precisely why I borrowed so much in ecess of actual need.</p>

<p>There is TONS of literature out there to educate students about the pitfalls of student loan debt. There are lenty of very affordable schools that offer a great deal of “free” aid. How many times have we read on this board about students who would rather throw away a full scholarship to a lesser liked school and take out a large amount of loans just to attend their dream school? This is the bigger problem then the industry or the schools. </p>

<p>As parents, we teach our children to “reach for the stars”. We tell them nothing is impossible. We give them everything we were “deprived” of as children. We pamper ourselves with expensive houses and cars and large credit card bills to afford the finer things in life. We want to become our children’s best friends…so when they get “teased” for not wearing the latest fashion trend, we find a way to provide them with it…to make their lives easier. Then, when th ehousehold finances hit rock bottom and we, as parents, are struggling to pay all the bills, we hide it from them. They never realize how hard it is to maintain the lifestyle. They don’t realize how hard we work to provide them with their wants.</p>

<p>We, as parents, created this monster…and now we want to blame the high priced schools and the government and the student loan industry.</p>

<p>Now…before all parents get upset, I know that there are many parents who have done an excellent job raising their children. They have taught them the finer ponts of debt, cost of living and how to reach their dreams without going broke. But this type of education isn’t occuring within the poorest communities..or the most afluent either. I live in a very destitute area of Virginia…yet many of the poorest teens are walking around with the latest cell phones, expenses clothing and driving the hottest cars, while their parents are walking to work and using payphones. And we wonder why today’s youth is stuck with 80k in loan debts when they graduate from college.</p>

65

<p>Parents, students, did not create the monster, although by careless decisions, or being simply unaware of the consequences they are certainly part of the problem. </p>

<p>The monster, as it were, has been created by a long campaign of lobbying by special interests. Which began at the point when it was decided to privatize systems which had worked well for the preceding generation. </p>

<p>And the first moves in this campaign were manifestly premised on falsehoods. If you recall the propaganda blitz based on the image of the doctor defaulting on student loans whilst buying his Mercedes etc. At the time this was at best a statistically negligible manner of incident. But that what was used to strip basic consumer protections from these loans. Ironically at the time this was done, default rates were much lower than they are today. Granted the USDOE manipulates the stats to make them work well for their proxy controllers in the industry…but defaults in certain categories are now past 15%. </p>

<p>So obviously it didn’t work, but the reason it stays in place is because these companies benefit from the situation via outrageous reconciliation fees and enhancements. </p>

<p>And concerning the concept that privatizing what had been a workable system was somehow more efficient, no. It has not been so for either the government, students or their families. To the extent that massive and repeated over billing of the US government has been a norm. </p>

<p>"Student Loans Still a Problem, Says Outgoing Ed. Dept. IG</p>

<p>The Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program remains extremely vulnerable to waste, fraud, and abuse, says John Higgins Jr., the Department of Education’s outgoing Inspector General. In a recent interview with The Chronicle of Higher Education, Higgins, who is retiring this month after serving in the government for 40 years, said that because the FFEL program is so complex, the Department often turns to people inside the student loan industry to regulate it. Putting lenders in charge of overseeing the loan program almost inevitably leads to potential conflicts of interest, he said. Under Higgins’ watch, the IG’s office has often criticized the Department’s lax oversight over the lenders and guarantee agencies that participate in FFEL. He also found himself at odds with the Department’s political leaders over his recommendations to require lenders to return hundreds of millions of dollars they received in improper 9.5 percent subsidy payments. An investigation his office conducted into the student loan company Nelnet’s efforts to overbill the U.S. Treasury won the Alexander Hamilton Award, a prize the government gives to inspector generals for “outstanding achievements in improving the integrity, efficiency, and effectiveness of Executive Branch agency operations” [Higher</a> Ed Roundup: Week of July 7 - July 11 | New America Blogs](<a href=“http://www.newamerica.net/blog/higher-ed-watch/2008/higher-ed-roundup-week-july-7-july-11-5074]Higher”>http://www.newamerica.net/blog/higher-ed-watch/2008/higher-ed-roundup-week-july-7-july-11-5074)</p>

<p>Concerning the concept that parents and students should know better than to be involved, or carelessly involve themselves with these companies. Yes the information is out there, but much of it is not adequately distributed. And a fair amount of research is needed, often well beyond what the average parent knows how to preform. Some of this information is quite hard to find, as both the USDOE and the loan industry have a vested interest in keeping it
from being distributed. Which leaves much of the available information accessible through activist press such as Higher Education Watch, or Paul Baskin at the Chronicle. Sources which the media giants tend to ignore, and many parents and students simply do not know even exists. </p>

<p>Schools may provide some information as in many states and salient federal statutes require that they do so. But, this information is often provided in a manner which is superficial simply because to give the full story could give students pause to even consider college. Wouldn’t want the numbers to go down would we? </p>

<p>And despite the NYS AG’s expose and the deal cut with certain of these companies to cease inappropriate activities, the controlling presence of these companies on campus is still very much in evidence. </p>

<p>As a result the information often given to students is hardly balanced. For example at the school where I work, a financial aid seminar was ‘sponsored’ by outside interests. On the poster announcing this seminar, the logos looked like a who’s who of the corporate loan industry. Now students may have been able to divine it was a agenda driven meeting by all the logos plastered all over the poster. But since it was placed on the schools notice boards, it would have been read as being run by the school itself. Another example, in our schools Fin Aid office brochures are provided from a ‘non profit student debt counseling service’. Guess what, it isn’t really. The organization providing this brochure is an effective subsidiary of the second largest for profit loan provider working in (or on) Colorado. And finally at one of Colorado’s larger University systems any scholarship application is first being processed through that same company. </p>

<p>So although information is out there, and school officials do try to protect student interests. The core reality is that academic systems are so pervaded by the edudebt industry that its unlikely many students will know what’s being done to them until its too late. And since they tend to trust their colleges (perhaps they should not) students will take the advice from this system without the level of critical thinking they perhaps should. </p>

<p>Which brings us back to the concept which began this discussion, that of students making stupid financial decisions in regards to student loans. Yes, there is a proportion who do so simply out of laziness. Others do so because they so badly desire to improve their education that long term consequence is set aside. But a more distressing group would be those students who intuitively know our educational funding system is corrupt, but go along because they have no choice or perceive there’s no pointing in trying to work around it.</p>

66

<p>And exactly how are students and parents to know about alternatives to loans. Which would after all be part of responsible decisions regarding educational funding…</p>

<p>When the system responsible for providing those alternatives seems to pretend these do not exist, and tries to minimize dissemination of information about them…?</p>

<p>The following refers to another one of Paul Baskin’s investigative articles, which was published today in the Chronicle of Higher Education…</p>

<p>Source: 08/04/2008 © The Chronicle
View Original Article</p>

<p>In the past couple of years, as participation in the government’s Academic Competitiveness and National Smart Grant programs has run well below expectations, the Education Department has offered reasons for why more low-income students are not taking advantage of the new college aid.</p>

<p>Initially, department officials suggested the program was just having the usual problems with getting started and noticed. And at a conference last month in Chicago, Education Secretary Margaret Spellings complained that not enough high schools were teaching students the challenging courses necessary to qualify.</p>

<p>In an audit released on Friday, however, the department’s own inspector general is suggesting another factor: The department itself isn’t doing enough to promote the grants.</p>

<p>The department “did not conduct sufficient follow-up with nonparticipating schools to ensure those required to participate in the ACG and/or National Smart program were doing so,” the office of the inspector general said in the audit.</p>

<p>Low-income college students are eligible for the Academic Competitiveness Grants, known as ACG, in their freshman and sophomore years. They’re eligible for the Smart grants in their junior and senior years. Freshmen are eligible after completing a “rigorous” program of study in high school, as defined by each state, with Education Department approval. College students in later years must maintain a 3.0 grade-point average and, for the Smart grant, be enrolled in one of several specific majors such as engineering, science, or a critical foreign language.</p>

<p>Unused Funds</p>

<p>Congress approved spending $790-million on the grants for the 2006-7 academic year and up to $4.5-billion through 2010. But only $242-million in ACG funds were given to 310,000 students in that first year, and only $206-million in Smart-grant funds reached 64,000 students. During the first 10 months of the 2007-8 year, the government gave out just $284-million in ACG funds and $184-million in Smart grants, the audit said.</p>

<p>Some education lobbyists have complained that Congress placed too many restrictions on the grants. Ms. Spellings, at a department-sponsored conference last month in Chicago, faulted high schools for not doing enough to prepare such students. “There is a rationing of rigor, of course work, that is embarrassing,” she said.</p>

<p>But the Education Department’s inspector general said on Friday that it was able to find many schools and colleges where administrators didn’t realize they and their students were eligible. The department often failed to pursue those institutions after an initial attempt to alert them, the inspector general said.</p>

<p>Confusion Over Eligibility</p>

<p>The department had a list of 640 nonparticipating schools that were potentially eligible for the ACG program in the 2006-7 year, the audit said. More than half, a total of 330, did not respond to a department contact. Checks at a random sample of 75 of those schools found 83 percent of them appeared to be eligible, the audit said.</p>

<p>And among the 310 nonparticipating schools that did respond to the department’s outreach, administrators at 23 percent of them said they did not believe they were eligible. Among those, 73 percent did in fact appear to be eligible.</p>

<p>The audit reported similar or smaller levels of confusion and uncertainty after it performed the same checks on colleges participating in the Smart-grant program.</p>

<p>The office of the inspector general recommended the department do a better job of reaching out to schools and colleges with eligible students. It also suggested the department begin fining institutions or making them ineligible for the federal Pell Grant program if they do not participate in the ACG or Smart grant programs when they have qualified students.</p>

<p>Education Department officials, in a written response to the audit, called it an opportunity to improve their operations and said they “concurred with the finding and its associated recommendations.”</p>

<p>Department officials also said in their response that a recent move by Congress to expand the eligibility criteria for ACG and Smart grants “will reduce the administrative barriers that may have contributed to school-participation rates during the first two years of the programs.”
[Florida</a> Board of Governors : Press Room](<a href=“flbog.org”>flbog.org)</p>

<p>Now since these grants would be instrumental in student aid, especially for the target population of low income students, it would seem the USDOE would bloody well make sure schools and students knew it was available. And ethically since they administer these grants that publicity would be an integral component of such administrative obligations. </p>

<p>However its obvious other agendas were involved beyond any real intention to aid lower income students. And as this kind of nonsense seems to be a day to day norm at the USDOE, there’s much more behind the tendency of students to make poor financial decisions about student loans, than a presumed mass of bovinely stupid students. </p>

<p>If entire sections of non loan programs are essentially buried by political appointees and questionable agendas within the USDOE, and information about those same programs is also buried…exactly how do students and parents make reasoned decisions about student loan funding and other better alternatives. And it seems no matter how many problems the USDOE IG exposes nothing seems to be done, either within the USDOE or by Congress…</p>

67

<p>I have a very hard time with the whole high cost of education situation. My stance has always been that education is important, extremely important. I think that going off to college is one of the better ways a student can spend his young adult years before truly going off on his own. The college provides a “safety” in terms of people of like interests and ages. Yes, there are other alternatives, but for kids who need to go away somewhere, it is often the best thing available. Some of the kids who can least afford to go away to college could gain the most out of the experience, since there are a number of such kids who are in environments that are threatening to their well being. Also as kids get to the age of adulthood, even in the most nurturing families, it benefits everyone’s mental health to ship the kid out somewhere…like college. THere is a book out there that has other alternatives, and I certainly think gap years and other programs would fit a need but right now college is a traditional venue. They might as well try to get an education as they enter the chrysalis of young adulthood. </p>

<p>The question becomes how much debt is truly too much. Seeing my 24 year old currently struggling to make ends meet with his low salary WITHOUT student loans, making a mess of his credit, bouncing checks, mismanaging financies, making every financial mistake in the book, makes me see how much harder this would be for kids who on top of this have big loans on their backs without parents who can help out. And as a parent with 5 kids spread out in ages, I can see now that we are midway through our kids going off to college, that we can be in trouble if we took out big time loans for each of our kids. Thankfully, we were able to meet a goodly amount of our first one’s colllege costs, and our second one is in a state school that is affordable to us. This allows the third one to go to a private school with some merit aid, and I have may fingers crossed for the last two. I am truly scared of what position we can be in when we are in our old age. This is with what is considered a high income–we are not eligible for financial aid. </p>

<p>Right now a student with a zero EFC, is entitled to enough in guaranteed loans and Pell to go to a local school living at home in most states. In some states he can go away to a state school especially if he is willing to pound salt and work to earn the difference in cost. It’s when we start looking at private schools that the problems start unless they are willing to subsidize the difference. The other kids with problems going to college are those whose parents refuse to provide FAFSA numbers or pay the cost of going to college. There are many parents out there who still don’t get that the undergraduate system is set up so that PARENTS not the STUDENTS are responsible for the cost of the education. They don’t get it that if they are considered able to pay, their kids are not going to get aid, and with no credit record/work history they won’t be able to get much in loans without co signing.</p>

68

<p>cpt of the house,
Quite astute observations. </p>

<p>The problem is whether the loan model for education should have ever been allowed to have developed. Much of the money which goes into subsidizing these loans, might have been better directed into grants or federal directs. </p>

<p>There’d be those who’d claim that the private sector would be more efficient in that regard. But the infiltration of the USDOE by that same private sector has made it abundantly clear that the private sector largely perceives educational funding as a cash cow. The 250+ million which NNC over billed the US government is just one instance of abuses. And SMC’s 2007 142 Billion dollar loan portfolio was largely backed by public money. And since policy within the USDOE is largely being set by political appointees, many of whom are directly placed from this industry its improbable proper oversight will be enacted. That has had been made very clear by the statement that reform is desperately needed made by the retiring IG for the USDOE. </p>

<p>For example, using just the one example of the 250 million over billing given to NNC by USDOE Secretary Spellings, over the objection of the USDOE IG…that would come to these little amounts of pocket change. 250000000 @ 3,000$ per student=83,333 students who could have been given grants. Or if you’d want to pay for their entire bachelors degree at a cheap state school…250000000@30000$=8,333 students. </p>

<p>Boss Tweed would be envious. And at least with Boss Tweed New York got a few pretty buildings as a unintended consequence of his avarice. </p>

<p>As such, in this feeding frenzy in a polluted pool provided by the US government- its incredibly unlikely policies and regulations favorable to student’s or protecting their rights will be propagated. And disappointing that none of the current candidates for high office have any meaningful policy statements about this incredible problem. Maybe they’re comforted by the warm slime of the pond about their feet? </p>

<p>The sad fact is it is the most vulnerable population of the working class and lower middle class Americans who have to swim with the sharks of this poisoned pond. Because of their declining status they often lack the resources to redirect meaningful portions of family incomes to education, but nonetheless they have been subjected to cutbacks in grant aid and other programs. Or as is indicated in my last posting, programs to help them are simply not run with any intent to do the help for which they were established. But in a globalist economy their employers often expect a college degree. </p>

<p>And students with “proper” EFC’s are often given financial aid packages heavily skewed to loans. Relative amounts of Pell grants have been in sharp decline since the 90’s. And that really hammers the lower class student especially when an average 6% yearly tuition rise (since 2001) is factored into the aid equation. And it can be a lifetime problem as the type of trades which one is often trained for with lower echelon degrees (such as a teachers license, social worker and etc) tend to pay poorly compared to the cost of the loans. </p>

<p>Essentially the appalling redirection of American education policy has benefited no one but the corporate giants who so successfully lobbied, schemed and bought these policies. And if it continues what we will see is a increasingly smaller proportion of our population who can even dare to contemplate higher education. </p>

<p>Second and third world country anyone…?</p>

69

<p>cpt,
The 0 EFC student in your scenario would likely graduate in 5-6 years and accumulate nearly $60K in debt.</p>

70

<p>My daughter has a 0 EFC. There is no local school where we live so that is not an option. With a 0 EFC she gets some good grant money which we are very grateful for. Those would no where near cover the costs of even a State school. Fortunately she also has some good merit scholarships including a full tuition waiver and a cash scholarship. Without those even with a 0 EFC and being at a State school she would have a lot of debt by the time she graduates. As it is she will have some debt at graduation (if she does not stay with the science major or the SMART grant is not still around when she is a junior/senior add $8k).</p>

71

<p>The Smart Grant may not be around too much longer, as noted above the USDOE seems to be trying to deemphasize such programs. </p>

<p>And congratulations on your D’s merit scholarships. </p>

<p>There have been some problems with these depending on the state and the school. Here Colorado at some schools scholarships are processed through a private corporation before even being considered by the academic divisions. No doubt the claim is that this ‘saves money’. But it is a blatant conflict of interest to have a private company whose main business is loans, vetting scholarship eligibility. Not to mention an abrogation of venue by the FA offices of the schools involved. </p>

<p>And no doubt under a system of that kind, some who clearly deserve a merit scholarship may not get one because their eligibility parameters have been skewed.</p>

72

<p>More indications that the USDOE and their various handlers really have no intention to provide students alternatives, beyond loans, for making rational decisions about their education.<br>
The selection below is from the August fourth “Chronicle of Higher Education”. Congress has set the funds for these new grants, and President Bush will not veto the bill. But it’s very indicative that once again, Spellings clearly intends to obstruct policies and programs that elected officials have tried to establish.
Perhaps all the poor decision making by students is a symptomatic of a system which has been so co-opted by vested interests that the whole idea of it actually working to benefit students is a sham. And not all students are oblivious beer guzzling automatons, some do read the education news.
But when they do read items like this, or the earlier article mentioning the effective burying of grant programs, what conclusion are they to derive?
For many it would be that our educational system has become so controlled by agendas anti ethical to student interests that there’s no point in pretending that it isn’t corrupt. And perhaps that concept is behind many students making bad financial decisions regarding their education. It’s the ‘what’s the point’ response typical for those caught in inefficient or corrupt systems. </p>

<p>August 4, 2008
Congress Creates Numerous New Grant Programs, to Secretary’s Dismay</p>

<p>Margaret Spellings, the U.S. secretary of education, isn’t happy about the dozens of new grant programs tucked into a major higher-education bill that cleared Congress last week, and she’s making her displeasure known.</p>

<p>In a letter sent to lawmakers last week, Ms. Spellings said that while the White House supports many pieces of the bill, which would reauthorize the Higher Education Act, the Bush administration remains concerned that the legislation would create more than 60 “new, costly, and duplicative programs.”</p>

<p>Many of the new programs were requested by interest groups or coalitions of groups. The programs include:</p>

<pre><code>* A program, sought by the conservative National Association of Scholars, that would provide grants to institutions to establish or strengthen programs that promote traditional American history, “the history and nature of, and threats to, free institutions,” and “the history and achievements of Western civilization.”

  • A grant program, sought by the American Association of University Women, to support fellowships for women and minorities seeking doctoral degrees (see Page 6 of the association’s agenda).
  • A grant program, sought by the National Court Reporters Association, to help colleges train writers to provide captioned, real-time information to the deaf and hard of hearing.
  • A grant program, sought by the Campaign for Environmental Literacy, to help institutions develop, use, and evaluate sustainability curricula, practices, and academic programs.
    </code></pre>

<p>President Bush has not threatened to veto the bill over its new programs and is expected to sign it into law</p>

<p>"In a letter sent to lawmakers last week, Ms. Spellings said that while the White House supports many pieces of the bill, which would reauthorize the Higher Education Act, the Bush administration remains concerned that the legislation would create more than 60 “new, costly, and duplicative programs.”</p>

<p>And as evidence of the contention that this system is indeed corrupt. It would be somewhat easier to believe Ms, Spellings was genuinely concerned about high costs if it were not for the massive over billings which she allowed to happen under her watch. And her ignoring the recommendations to investigate and correct these over billings by her own departmental IG’s. Unless of course high costs are only an issue for Secretary Spellings when the money might actually benefit students rather than her favorite loan companies bottom lines.</p>

73

<p>that I have such a short attention span, but all these incredibly long posts make me want to skip over them.</p>