Submitted by Sarah Flanagan (not verified) on April 11, 2008 - 12:15pm.
Steve Burd’s assertion that NAICU was doing anything other than assessing the situation for our students and colleges--and that we are promoting “sweetheart deals” that hurt our students—-belies reality.
NAICU has taken great measure to repeat over and over again that we do not yet see a crisis, but there is reason for policymakers to be informed about campus trends and develop contingency plans.
NAICU has vigorously supported new student loan sunshine legislation, which would provide safeguards so students are not victimized by predatory direct-to-consumer private lenders. Colleges would be required to certify eligibility for private loans to ensure that students and families have exhausted federal loan eligibility first. No association has worked harder on the details of this important legislation than NAICU.
The bottom line is that for some families the federal student loan limits are too low. Many of our families can't qualify for PLUS loans. In many cases, especially among first-generation college students, parents simply set their children free at age 18 and allow them to determine how to finance their education.
Two studies by the U.S. Department of Education have found that increases in federal student loan funding do not fuel tuition increases at private colleges and universities. However, the impact on public college tuitions is not so clear, so we understand why our public-sector colleagues fret about increasing overall limits
Our schools do not enjoy the large state subsidies given to public colleges, so our prices naturally are higher. Private colleges with significant resources do a great job of filling the aid gap. However, most private colleges are not wealthy. If you remove the 45 private colleges with endowments of more than $1 billion, the remaining 1,555 independent institutions have a median endowment of just $14 million.
Despite this, we enroll virtually the same percentage of low-income families as the public four year colleges. We also graduate students--of all backgrounds--at about the same rate in four years as state colleges do in six years. Quite a good story.
Anyway, Steve Burd knows us well. We have had many good-hearted policy debates. But the New American Foundation is far too focused on a handful of elite schools--the very ones that provide the most aid to students—and, in creating sensationalist blogs, do short shrift to real policy. We are disappointed in this unfair treatment of our survey, our schools, our students and our association.
Sarah Flanagan
Vice President for Government Relations and Analysis
National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities
What an Incredibly Misleading Piece of Reporting
Steve Burd’s assertion that NAICU was doing anything other than assessing the situation for our students and colleges--and that we are promoting “sweetheart deals” that hurt our students—-belies reality.
NAICU has taken great measure to repeat over and over again that we do not yet see a crisis, but there is reason for policymakers to be informed about campus trends and develop contingency plans.
NAICU has vigorously supported new student loan sunshine legislation, which would provide safeguards so students are not victimized by predatory direct-to-consumer private lenders. Colleges would be required to certify eligibility for private loans to ensure that students and families have exhausted federal loan eligibility first. No association has worked harder on the details of this important legislation than NAICU.
The bottom line is that for some families the federal student loan limits are too low. Many of our families can't qualify for PLUS loans. In many cases, especially among first-generation college students, parents simply set their children free at age 18 and allow them to determine how to finance their education.
Two studies by the U.S. Department of Education have found that increases in federal student loan funding do not fuel tuition increases at private colleges and universities. However, the impact on public college tuitions is not so clear, so we understand why our public-sector colleagues fret about increasing overall limits
Our schools do not enjoy the large state subsidies given to public colleges, so our prices naturally are higher. Private colleges with significant resources do a great job of filling the aid gap. However, most private colleges are not wealthy. If you remove the 45 private colleges with endowments of more than $1 billion, the remaining 1,555 independent institutions have a median endowment of just $14 million.
Despite this, we enroll virtually the same percentage of low-income families as the public four year colleges. We also graduate students--of all backgrounds--at about the same rate in four years as state colleges do in six years. Quite a good story.
Anyway, Steve Burd knows us well. We have had many good-hearted policy debates. But the New American Foundation is far too focused on a handful of elite schools--the very ones that provide the most aid to students—and, in creating sensationalist blogs, do short shrift to real policy. We are disappointed in this unfair treatment of our survey, our schools, our students and our association.
Sarah Flanagan
Vice President for Government Relations and Analysis
National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities