Student Loans + Affirmative Action
Who runs an $85 billion industry that appeals to down-and-out students and is looked upon unfavorably by the government?
If you said pornographers, you’d be wrong—they bring in a lot more money and most students don’t pay for their porn. The answer is the student loan companies who have come under the scrutiny of Congress recently, leading to last week’s resounding 414-to-3 vote by the House of Reps to “ban gifts and payments by student loan companies to universities.”
We’ve all heard about the skyrocketing tuition prices at American colleges and universities. It’s not surprising that student loaners are cashing in as demand rises for their services, but it has taken some time for government to catch onto some of their more suspect practices. Education Secretary Margaret Spelling has been grilled by the House Education and Labor Committee, who accused her of having her “blinders” up to inappropriate relations between student loan companies and universities.
As thisNew York Times article explains, many student loan companies have devolved into cronyism, conflict-of-interest relationships, and other practices that delegitimze the fairness of the loans and other financial aid services:
“It comes in the wake of revelations that lenders paid universities money contingent on student loan volume, gave gifts to the financial aid administrators whom students rely on to recommend lenders, and hired financial aid officials as paid consultants.”
There have been many oversights in the way the lending industry is regulated, allowing people to manipulate and corrupt the process by which resources are allocated fairly. However, four of the largest lending companies, as well as over 22 colleges, have agreed to a new code of conduct devised by Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, and Spelling is expected to lead investigations into ways of regulating student loans. To cut through all the jargon and get a primer on this whole issue, check out this piece from NPR’s as-of-yet-unreleased news program, currently masquerading as “The Bryant Park Project.”
Although it’s not directly related, the student loan scandal sort of got me thinking about another piece I heard on NPR last week about the failure of affirmative action programs to achieve their stated goals. On Weekend Edition Saturday, Scott Simon spoke to Douglas Massey, a Princeton professor of sociology who co-authored a study on how the number of black students in American colleges does not accurately the African-American population.
According to the study, the black students who benefit most from university affirmative action quotas are immigrants rather than those of native origin. Admission officers simply see race and don’t look at how the applicants qualified or where they came from.
The study also found that immigrant-origin black students were more likely to go to private schools, parochial schools, and generally more integrated high schools.
Affirmative action and student loan programs are both designed to help level the playing field in education for people of different racial and socio-economic backgrounds. But even when their intentions may appear laudable, they are far from perfect. Though it is easy forget (perhaps increasing less so, however), education is a field that, like any other business, relies heavily on profits and image.
I am not an expert on either of these subjects, so I’d be interested to hear what other people say. But it seems like a positive step for these oversights to be taken out in the open, discussed, and hopefully rectified.
Posted by Chris Schonberger
Who runs an $85 billion industry that appeals to down-and-out students and is looked upon unfavorably by the government?
If you said pornographers, you’d be wrong—they bring in a lot more money and most students don’t pay for their porn. The answer is the student loan companies who have come under the scrutiny of Congress recently, leading to last week’s resounding 414-to-3 vote by the House of Reps to “ban gifts and payments by student loan companies to universities.”
We’ve all heard about the skyrocketing tuition prices at American colleges and universities. It’s not surprising that student loaners are cashing in as demand rises for their services, but it has taken some time for government to catch onto some of their more suspect practices. Education Secretary Margaret Spelling has been grilled by the House Education and Labor Committee, who accused her of having her “blinders” up to inappropriate relations between student loan companies and universities.
As thisNew York Times article explains, many student loan companies have devolved into cronyism, conflict-of-interest relationships, and other practices that delegitimze the fairness of the loans and other financial aid services:
“It comes in the wake of revelations that lenders paid universities money contingent on student loan volume, gave gifts to the financial aid administrators whom students rely on to recommend lenders, and hired financial aid officials as paid consultants.”
There have been many oversights in the way the lending industry is regulated, allowing people to manipulate and corrupt the process by which resources are allocated fairly. However, four of the largest lending companies, as well as over 22 colleges, have agreed to a new code of conduct devised by Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, and Spelling is expected to lead investigations into ways of regulating student loans. To cut through all the jargon and get a primer on this whole issue, check out this piece from NPR’s as-of-yet-unreleased news program, currently masquerading as “The Bryant Park Project.”
Although it’s not directly related, the student loan scandal sort of got me thinking about another piece I heard on NPR last week about the failure of affirmative action programs to achieve their stated goals. On Weekend Edition Saturday, Scott Simon spoke to Douglas Massey, a Princeton professor of sociology who co-authored a study on how the number of black students in American colleges does not accurately the African-American population.
According to the study, the black students who benefit most from university affirmative action quotas are immigrants rather than those of native origin. Admission officers simply see race and don’t look at how the applicants qualified or where they came from.
The study also found that immigrant-origin black students were more likely to go to private schools, parochial schools, and generally more integrated high schools.
Affirmative action and student loan programs are both designed to help level the playing field in education for people of different racial and socio-economic backgrounds. But even when their intentions may appear laudable, they are far from perfect. Though it is easy forget (perhaps increasing less so, however), education is a field that, like any other business, relies heavily on profits and image.
I am not an expert on either of these subjects, so I’d be interested to hear what other people say. But it seems like a positive step for these oversights to be taken out in the open, discussed, and hopefully rectified.
Posted by Chris Schonberger
