When It Comes to Student-Loan Crisis, The Department of Education Is a Wizard of Oz Outfit: No Brains, No Courage, and No Heart

As the The Chronicle of Higher Education reported recently, the U.S. Department of Education has relaxed it standards for regulating student loans in ways that benefit certain segments of the higher education industry at the expense of students.

Specifically, DOE spared two or three dozen colleges from the consequences of having high student-loan default rates, it loosened standards for awarding Parent Plus Loans, and it dropped the "cohort-default-rate metric" from DOE's new "gainful employment" rule--a rule that is intended to rein in for-profit colleges that are not producing good student outcomes.

Relaxing standards for PLUS Loans

First, DOE relaxed standards for receiving Parent PLUS loans, loans parents take out to pay for their children's college educations. This may be good for historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs), which  have lobbied DOE to undo changes in DOE eligibility rules for Parent Plus loans because the stricter eligibility rules had hurt enrollment rates at some HBCUs.

But by relaxing its eligibility standards for PLUS loans, DOE may have hurt parents who are struggling to put their children through college. PLUS loans are a dangerous way to finance a college education because parents who sign them are personally liable along with their children for paying back those loans. And parents who take out PLUS loans will find it almost impossible to discharge those loans in bankruptcy even if health problems or a job loss makes it difficult to pay those loans back.

Dropping the "cohort-default rate" 

Likewise, dropping the "cohort-default rate" metric from DOE's new gainful employment rule will be good for HBCUs and the for-profits, both of which tend to have relatively high student-loan default rates. This change will make it easier for them to continue being elibible for participation in the federal student loan program--their life's blood.

Nevertheless, as critics noted, "the revised rule, which only looks at graduates' debt-to-income ratios, will allow 'dropout factories,' to pass simply by limiting the debt of the few students who finish" (Field, 2014). Allowing dropout factories to continue participating in the student loan program cannot be good for the students who are lured into attending them.

Sparing colleges from consequences of high student-loan default rates

Finally, sparing some colleges from the consequences of their high default rates, as DOE did last fall, is good news for the institutions that were spared (somewhere between 20 and 30).  But to allow a handful of high-default-rate colleges to continue receiving federal student-aid money may not be good news for the students who will continue borrowing money to enroll in colleges where a high percentage of students are unable to pay back their student loans.

DOE's approach to student loan crisis: No brains, no courage and no heart

The US. Department of Education: No brains, no courage, and no heart

The Chronicle quoted Maxwell John Love, president of the United States Student Association, as saying that DOE's actions "reinforces concerns the system is rigged in favor of the industry and special interests" (Field, 2014). And of course Love is right.

President Obama, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, and the Department of Education's senior officials know that the student loan program is out of control.  Their feeble attempts to rein in the for-profits are evidence of that.

But the for-profits will never be brought under control.  They have consistently fought DOE's efforts to regulate them either by lobbying or through litigation. In fact, the Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities sued DOE again this month, trying to block DOE's latest reiteration of its gainful employment rule (Field, 2014). This is the industry's third lawsuit against DOE that I know about.

In short, the Obama administration is a Wizard of Oz operation when it comes to confronting the student-loan crisis.  Its approach to fixing this massive problem lacks political courage; its regulatory efforts are cumbersome and unimaginative; and--at bottom--Obama and his minions are without genuine sympathy for the millions of people who have been hurt by the federal student loan program, by the for-profit colleges, and by the banking industry that has made millions in profits by offering private student loans

No brains, no courage, and no heart: this is the epitaph of the Obama administration's pathetic efforts to address the student loan catastrophe.

References

Kelly Field. ON College Accountability, Will Education Dept. Blink Again? The Chronicle of Higher Education, November 20, 2014. Accessible at:

The Department of Education Dishes Out More Baloney About Student Loan Default Rates

During World War I, it was said the British Army kept three different casualty lists: one list to deceive the public, a second list to deceive the  War Office, and a third list to deceive itself.

Something like that is going on with the Department of Education's latest report on student-loan default rates. According to DOE's latest report, which was released today,the three-year default rate actually dropped a full percentage point from 14.7 percent to 13.7 percent.

However, as Inside Higher Ed reported, DOE tweaked this year's report, adjusting rates for some institutions that were on the verge of losing their student aid due to high default rates. Students at these institutions were not counted as defaulters if they defaulted on one loan but had not defaulted on another. According to Inside Higher Ed, the adjustment will be applied retroactively to college's three-year default rates for the past two years.

Thus, as a Chronicle of Higher Education article noted,  it's "unclear whether [the adjustments for certain schools] or other factors affected the reported percentages."

The bottom line is this: As of today, we don't know whether student-loan default rates really went down or whether DOE's "adjustments" account for the decline.

Arne is full of it!

But it really doesn't matter.  As everyone in the higher education community knows, many colleges with high default rates have hired  "default management" firms to contact former students who are in danger of default and urge them to apply for economic hardship deferments.  Borrowers who get these deferments--and they are ridiculously easy to get--don't pay on their student loans but they aren't counted as defaulters.

Moreover, Arne Duncan's Department of Education has been pushing students to sign up for income-based repayment plans (IBRPs) that will lower students' monthly payments but will extend their repayment period from 10 years to 20 or even 25 years.  As I've said before, many people who obtained IBRPs are making monthly payments so small that the payments do not cover accruing interest. Thus, these people are actually seeing their loan balances get larger even though they are making payments and aren't counted as defaulters.

In short, we don't know what the true student-loan default rate is if it is defined as people who are not paying down their loan balances. But it is a lot higher than the 13.7 percent rate that DOE reported today.

Why is DOE tinkering with the numbers? One reason may be the high student-loan default rates among the HBCUs.  Last year, 14 HBCUs had three-year default rates of 30 percent--high enough to jeopardize their participation in the federal student loan program. This year, Arne Duncan announced that no HBCUs had default rates that would put them at risk of losing federal aid money.

Abrakadabra!  Arne Duncan tinkers a little with definitions and the student-loan default crisis is solved.

As Robert Cloud and I have argued in a forthcoming law review article, one of the three most important things that needs to be done to solve the student-loan crisis is to accurately report the true default rate.  And these are the other two things we must do: 1) provide easier access to bankruptcy for overburdened student-loan debtors, and 2) implement stronger regulations for the for-profit college industry.

But these things are not being done, and the student-loan crisis grows worse with each passing day. Like the British Army during the First World War, DOE doesn't want to know what the true student-loan default rate is and it doesn't want anyone else to know either.

References

Stratford, Michael. Education Dept. tweaks default rate to help colleges avoid penalties. Inside Higher Education, September 24, 2014.

Thomason, Andy. Student-Loan Defaults Decline in Latest Data, Education Dept. Says. Chronicle of Higher Education, September 24, 2014.

A Comment on Susan Dynarski's Op Ed Essay in the NY Times on President Obama's Proposed Federal College Rating System

Susan Dynarski contributed an op ed essay in a recent issue of the New York Times on President Obama's proposed college rating system.  As Ms. Dynarski explained, the President's intent is to rein in college costs.

Ms. Dynarski said up front that she does not think the President's proposal will help bring spiralling tuition costs under control--at least for the public colleges. She urged President Obama to slow down the initiative to put a college rating system in place in order to get it right.

I will go further and say that the President's college rating plan will do nothing to control college costs. Instead, it will simply add another layer of bureaucracy to the nation's higher education sector, which is already burdened with red tape created by efforts to comply with FERPA, the Clery Act, Title IX, the federal student aid program, and a blizzard of "Dear Colleague" letters issued by the Department of Education.

Without a doubt, the nation's elite schools will do just fine under any rating system that President Obama and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan are likely to devise; they have large endowment funds, lobbyists, and lawyers that will make sure they come out on top.  Don't worry about Harvard, Stanford, or Yale.

The HBCUs will also do all right under any rating system that the Obama administration designs; nobody wants to increase pressure on them. And, judging by their past success in fending off effective federal oversight, most of the for-profits will also manage to thrive under any new college rating system that is likely to be put in place.

But, as Ms. Dynarski pointed out, the new rating system will probably hurt the private, nonprofit colleges most, particularly the non-selective nonprofits that do not have large endowments.  Many may be forced to close their doors. She is right to warn that these colleges "will do everything they can to avoid this, including lobbying to tweak the ratings."

I hope President Obama and Secretary Duncan heed Ms. Dynarski's advice and put their college-rating system on the back burner.  If Obama and Duncan want to bring costs under control, they should continue putting the heat on the for-profit college sector, where tuition costs are highest. In my view, the for-profits should be kicked out of the federal student-aid program, which would cause most of them to be shut down. The federal aid money that now goes to the for-profits receive--about $35 billion per year-should be invested in low-cost community colleges.


References

Dynarski, Susan. Why Federal College Ratings Won't Rein in Tuition. New York Times, September 20, 2014. Accessible at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/21/upshot/why-federal-college-ratings-wont-rein-in-tuition.html

Like a Secret Drunk Who Hides A Bottle of Bourbon in His Office Drawer, The Higher Education Industry is Addicted to Student Loans But Won't Admit It

Almost everyone agrees that Alcoholics Anonymous has the best treatment program for alcoholics. AA's simple 12-step program is followed by alcoholics all over the United States, and AA's method for treating alcoholics has been adapted for other addictions as well--including the addiction to drugs.

Perhaps the higher education industry should adopt an AA-style 12-step program to treat its addiction to the federal student loan program.  After all, higher education's dependence on federal student aid money really is an addiction. For-profit colleges in particular could not survive a week without regular infusions of federal cash.

Drinking problem? What drinking problem?
photo credit: twentytwowords.com

But the Obama administration and Arne Duncan's Department of Education treat the student-loan mess as if it were just an irritating  problem and not a full-blown crisis.  It's like Aunt Sally's tolerance for Uncle Ed's drinking binges--she just smiles while reassuring herself that Ed maybe drinks just a wee bit too much.

And President Obama's announcement to expand the Pay As You Earn program shows us that he is in denial about the magnitude of the student-loan crisis.  His administration's decision to expand the program, like its decision to continue strengthening the regulation of the for-profit industry, shows that President Obama and Arne Duncan know that the student-loan mess is serious.  But they want to address the problem like Aunt Sally deals with Uncle Ed's drinking--they just want to water down the whiskey.

Let's face it, in spite of the New York Times' sycophantic praise, Pay As You Earn is nothing more than a plan to stretch students' 10-year student-loan repayment obligations to 20 years.  Yes, this will reduce borrowers' monthly payments, which will give college-loan debtors some short-term relief; but borrowers will be paying on their loans for a majority of their working lives. Is that a real solution?

Second, although I haven't seen any financial analysis to back me up on this observation, I suspect a lot of people who elect the government's income-based repayment options for paying back their loans  won't be making payments large enough to reduce the principal on their debt.  When their loan obligations are discharged after 20 years, millions of people will still owe as much as they borrowed. How can that be a good thing?

So let's look at that 12-step plan.

Step number one is to admit that you have a problem and are powerless to control it.  The Feds could follow that first step by releasing the real student-loan default rate--not that phony three-year rate it releases every October.  According to DOE's latest report, about 15 percent of  recent debtors defaulted within three years of beginning their loan repayment phase; for students who attended for-profit colleges, the rate is 21 percent.

Those numbers are bad but they dramatically understate the true default rate.  Many for-profits, community colleges and some traditional four-year schools have hired so-called "default prevention" firms to contact distressed student borrowers and encourage them to sign up for economic hardship deferments.  Students who obtain these deferments--which are quite easy to get--are not counted as defaulters even though they are not making loan payments.

Just facing up to the reality of how many millions of people are not paying back their loans would be an admission that the student-loan program is out of control.  That's step number 1 of the AA's 12-step plan.

Another important step in AA's 12-step program is to make amends to the people you have injured. I believe that is step number 9.

And of course the Obama administration, Congress and the nation's colleges and universities haven't made amends to the people who have been hurt by the student-loan program.  And until they make amends they haven't done what is necessary to break the higher education industry's dependence on federal student aid money.

What should be done?  As I have tirelessly advocated, Congress needs to amend the Bankruptcy Code to allow insolvent student-loan debtors to discharge their  student loans in bankruptcy so long as they file in good faith.

Second, the federal government should stop garnishing the Social Security checks of elderly student-loan debtors who defaulted on their loans.

And third, the for-profit college industry needs to be shut down.

Of course none of these things are going to happen.  Our government will continue to hide the true magnitude of the student-loan default rate, and it will continue to let millions of people suffer who have no reasonable hope of ever paying off their student loans.

And just like Uncle Ed, who drinks in secret, our nation's colleges and universities will continue abusing students by forcing them to borrow more and more money.  Eventually, Uncle Ed will kill himself from excessive drinking. And eventually, higher education's addiction to federal student aid will destroy the integrity of our nation's colleges and universities, which were once the envy of the world.

No one knows just how Uncle Ed will die--liver disease or a fatal car accident.  And no one knows just how low American higher education will go in terms of its degradation.  But the future is bleak for both of them.

References

Student Borrowers and the Economy. New York Times, June 11, 2014, p. A20.

Tardy praise for the Obama Administration's regulations to cut down on abuse in the for-profit college industry

Arne Duncan

I have criticized President Obama and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan for not doing enough to stop the abuse in the for-profit college industry and for failing to pass measures to ease the suffering of millions of stressed-out student-loan debtors.  I have argued for bankruptcy reform so that insolvent student-loan borrowers can discharge their student loans, and I favor a law that would prohibit the federal government from garnishing the Social Security checks of elderly student-loan defaulters. I also favor a crackdown on Dickensian loan-collection practices against student-loan defaulters.

I still favor those things, and I still think the Obama administration has not done enough to help people who have been injured by their participation in the federal student loan program.  But President Obama and Secretary of Education Duncan have tried to rein in the abuses in the for-profit college industry, and they deserve praise for their efforts.

In October 2010, the Obama administration released new regulations--called the program integrity rules--in an effort to stop fraud, misrepresentations, and high-pressure recruiting by for-profit colleges.  The rules prohibited for-profit colleges from paying bonuses to employees based on the number of students they recruited, a practice that encouraged recruiters to sign up students who were unqualified for the programs they borrowed money to enter.  The rules also contained sanctions against institutions that misrepresented their programs or their programs' costs.

In 2011, the Department of Education issued its gainful employment rules--rules designed to close down colleges that did not produce significant numbers of graduates who made enough money to pay off their student loans.

The for-profit industry sued to invalidate these regulations, and they enjoyed quite a bit of success.  A federal court struck down important sections of the program integrity rules, and another federal court essentially gutted the Department of Education's gainful employment rules.

But a few days ago, the Department of Education released new regulations to rein in abuse among the for-profit colleges. These new regulations wee drafted to avoid the legal pitfalls that led the original regulations to be struck down by the courts.

Of course, the for-profits may sue to strike down these new regulations, and they will certainly turn their lobbyist loose to keep the government from effectively stopping abuses in an industry that is ripe with abuse.

But at least President Obama and Secretary of Education are still trying to clean up the for-profit college industry. They face long odds, but they deserve credit for their perseverance.

References

Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities v. Duncan, 681 F.3d 427 (D.C. Cir. 2012).

Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities v.Duncan, 870 F. Supp. 2d 133 (D.D.C. 2012).

Chris Kirkham. For-Profit Colleges That Bury Students in Debt Face Second Obama Crackdown. Huffington Post, March 13,  2014. Available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/13/for-profit-colleges-obama_n_4961163.html

"Fill out those forms, fill them out!" Michelle Obama recklessly urges low-income students to go into debt to attend college

Michelle Obama and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan were in Alexandria, Virginia earlier this week urging students to fill out federal financial-aid forms to attend college. "Fill out those forms, fill them out!" Michelle urged students as she watched them fill out the forms. "Don't leave money on the table."

Fill out those forms, fill them out!

I don't mean to be hard of Ms. Obama.  I commend her for urging high school students to attend college.  And I realize most low-income students need to borrow money in order to pursue the dream of a college education.  And the forms are complicated to fill out, although the Department of Education is trying to make them simpler.

Nevertheless, it is reckless and irresponsible to urge poor families to borrow money to attend college unless that advice includes some warnings about the trouble poor kids can get into when they take out college loans.

First of all, the federal student loan program has created a giant morass of debt that has sucked many people into a lifetime of penury. People who attend for-profit colleges are especially vulnerable.  According to DOE's own data, one out of five students who take out loans to attend for-profit institutions default within three years of beginning repayment.   And, as I have said before, the true default rate is probably double that.  And research shows that low-income and minority kids are most likely to be snagged by the rapacious for-profit college industry.

Is it irresponsible for the First Lady to urge students to take out student loans without warning them about the for-profit colleges?  Yes, it is.

Second, millions of people with college degrees hold jobs that don't require a college education, and millions more have made poor borrowing decisions--borrowing money to get an expensive degree in art education, for example, that will never open the door to a high paying job.

Consequently, lots of people have defaulted on their loans or have gotten economic hardship deferments. According to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a federal agency, 15 million people have either defaulted on their loans or have stopped making payments because they are under some sort of economic hardship deferment or other forbearance program.

 Among the people who are making loan payments, quite a few are making payments that don't cover accruing interest, which means their debt is growing larger over time, even though they make their loan payments every month.

Is it irresponsible for Michelle Obama to encourage young people to borrow money to attend college without warning them of the consequences of making poor choices in terms of a college major or the cost of tuition at the college they choose?  Again, the answer is yes.

Meanwhile, Arne Duncan's Department of Education is frantically urging student-loan borrowers to sign up for income-based repayment plans that lower monthly payments but stretch out the loan  repayment period to 20 or even 25 years.  In my opinion, DOE is setting up America's young people to become a class of indentured servants--forced to turn over a portion of their paychecks to student-loan creditors over the majority of their working lives.

Let's face it: Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, and Arne Duncan are in a frenzied effort to preserve the status quo for the higher-education industry--a bloated, self-satisfied, increasingly isolated and irrelevant bunch of institutions led by overpaid blow-hard presidents.

Millions of people have fallen into the student-loan trap.  Financially stressed debtors can't take bankruptcy to discharge their loans.  They don't have access to consumer protection laws.  Those who are ripped off by the for-profit colleges can't sue because the for-profits force students  to sign agreements promising not to sue as a condition of taking classes.

Michelle may think her life story is an inspiration for aspiring young people who are living in poverty.  But the chance that these kids will go to Princeton and Harvard Law School like Michelle did is about as good as getting a lucrative contract to play for the Pittsburgh Steelers.

If Barack, Michelle and Arne want to start behaving responsibly, they should work to kick the for-profit colleges out of the federal student loan program.  They should work to amend the Bankruptcy Code to allow insolvent student-loan debtors to discharge their loans in bankruptcy. They should publicize the true student-loan default rate--which is probably double what DOE reports every year.

But Barack, Michelle, and Arne won't do that.  The higher-education industry's lobbyists and campaign contributions make sure no serious reforms will ever take place.  And millions of low-income and minority young people are seeing their financial futures destroyed, not enhanced, by the federal student loan program.

References

Emmarie Huetteman. First Lady Urges Students to Apply for College Aid. New York Times, February 6, 2014, p. A15.

Such hypocrisy! The Obama administration urges private college-loan lenders to play nice with student borrowers

Obama administration officials summoned the leading private student-loan creditors to a meeting at the Treasury Department yesterday to urge them to do more to help student-loan borrowers who are in danger of default.

Who attended this meeting?  Arne Duncan, Secretary of Education, and Richard Cordray, chief of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, represented the government.

And these are some of the banks that attended: Sallie Mae, Wells Fargo, JP Morgan Chase, RBS Citizens Financial, PNC Financial Services, SunTrust Banks, and Discover Financial Services.

The Obamacrats delivered their usual blather about easing the plight of overburdened student-loan borrowers.  This is how a government  spokeswoman described the meeting.

Participants discussed strategies to assist borrowers in successfully managing their private student loans, including servicing best practices and approaches to private student loan modifications and refinancing.

Yak, yak, yak.  The only way to get the private banks to behave decently toward indebted college students is to force them out of the student-loan business altogether.  And this could be done so easily.

In 2005, Congress amended the Bankruptcy Code to make private student loans nondischargeable in bankruptcy absent "undue hardship"--the same standard that applies to federal student loans. Consequently, private student loans--like federal student loans--are almost impossible to discharge in a bankruptcy court.

All Congress needs to do to reform the private student-loan industry is repeal the 2005 law and allow insolvent debtors with private student loans to discharge those loans in bankruptcy. I guarantee you, this single legislative change would dry up the private student-loan industry overnight.

But Congress won't do the straightforward thing.  No--it will tinker with all kinds of cosmetic fixes and allow the private banks to continue exploiting colleges students.  

Hands down, Sallie Mae is the chief offender. According to a 2012 news story, Albert Lord, Sallie Mae's CEO, made $225 million between 1999 and 2004 and was building his own private golf course.  What do you think his total compensation is today?

Democrats seem to think they can establish their liberal credentials simply by expressing sympathetic platitudes. Arne Duncan talks about helping student borrowers but hasn't done a damn thing to alleviate the student loan crisis.  And Senator Elizabeth Warren, a self-proclaimed consumer's  advocate, is all bark and and no bite.

Thanks, Arne,ever so much!

Why doesn't Congress act more aggressively to give college students some relief? Maybe because the private lenders and private-college industry hire well-paid lobbyists to protect their interests and make strategic campaign contributions to powerful politicians.

Personally, I won't start believing the so-called liberal Democrats who express concern about the student-loan crisis until some of them throw their support behind some straightforward and simple reforms.  First and foremost, insolvent students who took out private loans to finance their education should have access to bankruptcy.  

References

U.S. Urges Private Lenders and services to Help Borrowers. Inside Higher Education, January 20, 2014. Accessible at: http://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2014/01/10/us-urges-private-lenders-and-servicers-help-borrowers

Sophia Zamen. "Education is Worth It": Students Take on Sallie Mae CEO Albert Lord at Shareholder Meeting.  Alternet.org, May 21,2012. Accessible at: http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/932971/%22education_is_worth_it%22%3A_students_take_on_sallie_mae_ceo_albert_lord_at_shareholder_meeting

Note: My description of the meeting at the Treasury Department comes from the Inside Higher Education story.  My references to Sallie Mae are taken from Sophia Zamen's essay for Alternet.org

President Obama's "Pay as You Earn" program to stretch out student loan repayment over 20 Years: Scarlett O'Hara would approve

 I can't think about that right now. If I do, I'll go crazy. I'll think about that tomorrow.

Scarlett O'Hara, Gone With the Wind

President Obama has shown a commendable concern about the rising cost of attending college and the rising student-loan default rate.  Unfortunately, the President's proposed solutions don't go to the root of the problem.

Yesterday's New York Times reported that the U.S. Department of Education is going to contact student-loan debtors who are in danger of default and urge them to consider a variety of repayment options--including "Pay as You Earn."

DOE's "Pay as You Earn" program allows student-loan borrowers to make loan payments based on a percentage of their income over a period of 20 years. At the end of the repayment period, the remaining balance on the loan will be forgiven.

Scarlett O'Hara would approve. As she famously said in Gone With the Wind, "I won't think about that right now. . . I'll think about that tomorrow." Pay as You Earn simply "kicks the can down the

I'll think about student loans tomorrow

road," so to speak, postponing the day when the government must face the fact that the federal student loan program is a disaster.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan thinks extended repayment programs will help prevent student-loan defaults, and he may be right. Admittedly, allowing student-loan debtors to make income-based payments over 20 years instead of fixed payments over 10 years will allow borrowers to make smaller monthly loan payments. But here are the problems with the program.

Most Pay as You Earn debtors will never pay off the principal of their loans. By design, the program allows people to make loan payments based solely on their income, and for many debtors--probably most of them--those payments will not be enough to pay down the principal of their promissory notes.  Under the plan, people who are unemployed or who have very low incomes may pay nothing on their loans for several years. Meanwhile interest will continue to accrue, making their debts grow larger.

Right now, 1.6 million student-loan debtors are participating in some kind of income-based repayment plan. I think it is safe to predict that at least a million of those people will still owe on their loans when their 20-year or 25-year repayment plan comes to an end.

In essence, Pay as You Earn debtors are indentured servants to the government. Second, requiring people  who attended college to pay a portion of their income for 20 or 25 years turns those people into 21st century indentured servants. They will be sending a portion of their income to the federal government for a majority of their working lives. Who thinks that is a good idea?

Income-Based Repayment Plans eliminate people's incentive to borrow as little money as possible to attend college.  Obviously, if students' college-loan payments are going to be based on a percentage of income regardless of the amount borrowed, then it makes sense for students to borrow as much money as possible.

Not only will the program eliminate the incentive to minimize student borrowing, it will also reduce the incentive for colleges to keep their costs down.  Who cares how much college costs, if student-loan payments are going to be based solely on an ex-student's income?

Pay as You Earn  will likely  increase red tape and bureaucracy.  Pay as You Earn and other federal income-based repayment programs will likely create a giant bureaucracy that will require the
government to adjust people's loan payments on an annual basis based on changes in income, periods of unemployment, and other factors.

The federal student loan program is already nearly incomprehensible to many student-loan debtors. I fear this program will balloon into the educational equivalent of Obamacare and Social Security and will require mountains of paperwork and bureaucratic red tape to administer.  Is this the future we want for our college graduates?

Conclusion: It's time to face the music.   It is time for the Obama administration, government policy makers and the nation's universities to face the music.  The federal student loan program is a catastrophe.  Like a drug addict, our universities have become hooked on federal student-loan money, which they rely on to survive. Thus, we cannot eliminate the program overnight; or our loan-dependent universities will go into toxic shock.

But we can gradually begin dialing this program down.  First, let's kick the for-profits out of the federal student loan program. That would shrink the cost of the program by about 25 percent and reduce the number of loan defaulters dramatically.  Of course, most for-profit colleges would be forced to close. But that's OK; the United States can get along just fine without the University of Phoenix.

Second, as I've said repeatedly, we have to allow truly distressed student-loan debtors to discharge their loans in  bankruptcy, so they can get a fresh economic start.

Third, we need to encourage more low-cost community colleges to do what some have already done--get out of the student loan program altogether. Wouldn't it be a good thing to offer low-income students low-cost options for attending college--options that would not require them to assume crushing debt just to get an education?

But so far, the higher education industry and the federal government want to prop up the status quo.
No one wants to confront the enormity of the problems that were created by the federal student loan program.  Like Scarlett O'Hara, we've decided not to think about that right now.  We'll think about that tomorrow.

References

Tamar Lewin. U.S. to Contact Borrowers With New Options for Repaying Student Loans. New York Times, September 25, 2013, p. A20.

Why President Obama's Proposal for Controlling College Costs is a Nonstarter

In politics as in life, there are problem solvers and there are problem managers.

President Obama is a problem manager.  Before he was elected president, he saw Guantanamo as a problem to be solved, and he promised to close it. Five years into his term of office, Guantanamo is still open; it is being managed.

Ma'am, I don't solve problems; I manage them.

Likewise with the student loan crisis. Fifty Million Americans now hold $1.2 trillion in student loan debt.  About 6.5 million people have formally defaulted, and another 9 million are not making payments because they have been granted deferments or forbearances. 

For-profit colleges account for almost half of all student loan defaults.  The Department of Education reports that about 20 percent of student loans originating in the for-profit sector default within three years of entering repayment, but DOE estimates that almost half of all students who borrow money to attend a for-profit institution will eventually default.

Now that's a problem. Is the Obama administration trying to solve it? No it is not.

Last week, President Obama proposed the creation of a college rating system whereby the federal government will rank colleges and universities based on their costs, their graduation rates, the number of low-income students they enroll, and some other factors.  The President hopes to link this rating system to the federal student loan program, perhaps allowing students who attend high-ranking colleges to borrow money at a lower interest rate.

By introducing such a system, the President hopes to encourage colleges to keep their tuition prices down and stop the ever-increasing cost of attending college. In short, President Obama wants to manage the student loan crisis, not solve it.

Why is President Obama's college ranking system doomed to fail? Several reasons:

Colleges will just game the system. First as the New York Times pointed out in a recent editorial, colleges are very good at gaming the system when it comes to measuring college quality. We've seen how they've manipulated data to make themselves look better in the U.S. News & World Report rankings.  They will use the same tactics if the feds implement a college rating system. So why go through this charade?

DOE doesn't even give us useful information about student-loan default rates. Second, DOE has shown itself unable to provide the public with accurate information about one simple measurement--the student-loan default rate.  DOE only measures the number of people who default during the first three year of the repayment period--currently about 13 percent.  But the number of people who default over the lifetime of the repayment period is much higher--probably double DOE's posted rate.  And that''s the number the public really needs to know.

If DOE can't report an accurate and useful student loan default rate--a simple thing to do, what makes anyone think it can manage a much more complicated college ranking system?

Students and families won't choose a college based on the federal ranking system. Third, students and their families won't make college choices based on the federal government's rankings, so why set up a bureaucratic ranking system?  Texas high school graduate are not going choose between enrolling at the University of Texas or Texas A & M based on rankings reported by Secretary of Education Arne Duncan.  They choose their college based on a host of very personal factors, not the least of which involves the varsity football team's win-loss record.

The Clery Act, which Congress passed in 1990, demonstrates my point.  Congress passed the Clery Act in the wake of the rape and murder of Jeanne Clery, a freshman at Lehigh University, based on the belief that parents need more information about crime rates in and around the nation's colleges and universities.  The law requires all higher education institutions that receive federal funds to report crime activity in their campus communities on an annual basis.

Although the Clery Act has some useful features--colleges are required to notify the campus community of ongoing criminal activities--I have never met anyone who made a decision about where to go to college based on the Clery Act's crime reports.

If students and their parents aren't going to make college choices based on the Clery Act's crime statistics, they are not going to make them based on Secretary Duncan's rating system.  Does anyone disagree?

Why impose more federal regulations on a host of colleges that are doing a pretty good job? Finally, President Obama wants to impose another layer of bureaucratic measurements on colleges and universities that are already overly regulated.  And a lot of these institutions are doing a pretty good job.  College tuition has gone through the roof at the Ivy League colleges and other elite universities, but a college education is still fairly reasonable at the nation's community colleges and regional universities, like the one where I teach.

The growing level of student-loan debt is a big problem that gets bigger every day, and there is no simple solution. Nevertheless, it is clear that the rapacious for-profit college industry is the source of a lot of student indebtedness and about half of the student-loan defaults. 

We won't solve the student-loan crisis until we bring the for-profit colleges under control. Unfortunately, President Obama doesn't have the political courage to tackle that problem.  He would rather rank all colleges than put the bad apples out of business.

In short, President Obama doesn't want to solve the student-loan crisis, he wants to manage it--at last until his term of office expires.

References

Editorial. A Federal Prod to Lower College Costs. New York Times, August 22, 2013. Accessible at: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/23/opinion/a-federal-prod-to-lower-college-costs.html?_r=0

Michael Shear and Tamar Lewin. On Bus Tour, Obama Seeks to Shame Colleges Into Easing Costs. New York Times, August 22, 2013. Accessible at: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/23/us/politics/obama-vows-to-shame-colleges-into-keeping-costs-down.html?ref=opinion

Arne Duncan Did Such A Great Job Managing the Student Loan Crisis, Let's Make Him Secretary of State!

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan
After Arne, the deluge
credit(Wikipedia)

In a recent New York Times editorial, Thomas Friedman endorsed Secretary of Education Arne Duncan as the next Secretary of State. Right.  Duncan has done such a great job managing the nation's student loan crisis, let's put him in charge of the Middle East.

Without a doubt, the federal student loan program is DOE's biggest challenge. As everyone knows, the program has about $1 trillion in outstanding student loans and about 6 million people are either behind on their loan payments or in programs designed to help people who can't make their regular payments.

What has DOE done about the federal student loan program under Secretary Duncan's watch?

First, DOE has increased the measurement period for computing default rates from two years after the loan repayment period begins to three years. This is a good thing, because it moves us closer to determining what the real default rate is.

But research shows that most student-loan debtors default after three years,and we know that some For-Profits have encouraged their former students to apply for economic hardship deferments to keep those students from showing up as defaulters. We still don't know what the default rate is over the life of students' repayment period, but it is much higher than DOE reports. The default rate for students attending for-profit schools is quite high--maybe 50percent.

Second, the Obama administration has eased the repayment terms for borrowers who elect to enter the Income-Based Repayment Program, which is also a good thing. But we are not solving the student-loan crisis by putting borrowers in 20 year repayment plans.  In fact, we may be creating a new class of indentured servants, people who pay a percentage of their income to the federal loan program for the majority of their working lives.

I realize the federal student loan program has enormous economic and political dimensions, with many powerful players wedded to the status quo.  I would not expect Arne Duncan to solve all the problems associated with the program without broad political support.

Nevertheless, these are the things that President Obama and Secretary Duncan could have done and should have done, whether or not there was Congressional support.

Number One: DOE needs to report an accurate student-loan default rate, which it has not done. Instead, the public has had to rely on outside agencies to provide some clues as to what is going on. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York's recent report is enormously informative, but the Reserve Bank relied on a credit agency, not DOE, to get data to assess the student loan program.

Number Two: The Obama administration and DOE could stop the garnishment of elderly student-loan debtors' Social Security checks. Social Security income is exempt from garnishment for a wide variety of debt, but not student loans.  This year, the government garnished Social Security checks of 119,000 elderly people (Lewin, 2012). This practice is a scandal and undermines President Obama's image as a person who truly cares about Americans suffering economic hardship.

Number Three:  I know I am repeating myself, but we must provide reasonable avenues for people to discharge their student loans in bankruptcy. Presently, a significant percentage of people make bad choices when borrowing money to attend college. Instead of enhancing their economic future, they have sealed their economic fate--basically casting themselves out of the middle class because they are saddled by unmanageable student-loan debt.  For these people, the student-loan mess is not just an economic crisis, it is a crisis of human suffering.

In years to come, when Arne Duncan's tenure as DOE Secretary is assessed, historians will say he did an admirable job of managing the student-loan crisis, which grows bigger every day. But we don't need a problem manager to head DOE right now, we need a problem solver.  Arne Duncan has not been a problem solver, and for someone of Thomas Friedman's status to suggest that Duncan should run the State Department is difficult for me to understand.  (Fortunately, Duncan said no to Friedman's suggestion (Fabian, 2012).

References

Meta Brown, Andrew Haughwout, Donghoon Lee, Maricar Mabutas, and Wilbert van der Klaauw. (2012). Grading Student Loans. Federal Reserve Bank of New York. http://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2012/03/grading-student-loans.html

Fabian, Jordan (November 28, 2012). Education Secretary Says No to Secretary of State. ABC News. http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/education-secretary-arne-duncan-secretary-state/story?id=17826816#.ULd-4Ky5Plg

Thomas L. Friedman (November 27, 2012). My Secretary of State, New York Times.

Tamar Lewin (November 12, 2012). Child's Education, but Parents' Crushing Loans. New York Times.