0 My Testimony to the U.S. Senate

This morning, I testified before the United State's Senate HELP committee on the topic of college affordability. My written testimony can be found here.  The text of my oral testimony follows, and I have added a q&a to respond to several questions I expect to receive.  I welcome your feedback.

TESTIMONY

Good morning, Chairman Harkin, Senator Alexander, and Members of the Committee. Thank you all for this opportunity.

There’s never been a more important time to address the issue of college affordability.  College is now the main road to a stable, secure life, and in this age of global knowledge markets, it is college-educated workers who will be the main driver of the U.S.’s prosperity. But the research evidence is clear:  most families and students find the high cost of college attendance unbearable, and it’s affecting their choices about whether to attend college, where to go, and even whether or not to finish the degrees and certificates they start. As access to college becomes more difficult, public frustration is emerging and is spilling over towards other institutions and indeed into the streets.

Today Americans are experiencing annual declines in family income, yet net price of attending public colleges and universities continues to rise by almost $500 per year—that’s after taking aid into account. In the early 1970s, the maximum Pell Grant covered almost 80% of the costs of attending a public 4-year institution--today it covers barely 30%.  With so little help, even low-income families are left with a bill of about $12,000 a year. For many, that’s the equivalent of up to 70% of their annual income. And so unsurprisingly, only about 1 in 10 find their way a college degree.

It hasn’t always been this way. The idea that students should bear most of the costs of college comes from a time when college cost much less and powerful people thought markets were saviors.  Students today are just as responsible as ever, and just as willing to work for their education, but their task is plainly impossible.  Covering that $12,000 in unmet need requires a student to work at least 35 hours a week, 52 weeks a year at the federal minimum wage. That arrangement is untenable, and moreover compromises their chances of completing their degrees.

Congress got it right in 1972 when it affirmed the societal goal of universal access to postsecondary education as a citizen’s right.  Understanding that low tuition supplemented by the Pell grant was the most effective means of supporting access, it invested heavily in that key program.

But within a decade, the needs of students and families fell by the wayside, and our financial aid system has never recovered.  Acting on the theory that higher education would become more “equitable” and efficient by operating on free market principles, policymakers began reducing the availability of grant aid, increasing the availability of loans, and de facto encouraging rising costs of attendance we see today.

This was a mistake.  The decision to move away from a low-tuition approach to higher education, coupled with a refusal to regulate how institutions set prices has forced millions of students into debt.  Loans are the new normal because of political choices, not because there are no alternatives.  College today what the high school was a century ago, and yet students are being required to both work and borrow for it.

The consequences are evident—I’ve spent the last five years with a team of researchers on the ground in Wisconsin documenting the results.  Let me tell you about Chloe, who I met when she enrolled in a Wisconsin technical college after finishing high school in a small, rural Wisconsin town of just 1,800 people. Chloe wanted to become a veterinary technician. Since she was the first person in her family to even try college, they had no savings.  So she got the Pell and figured she was set.  Not quite. As a last-ditch effort to ensure that she had enough resources for books, she’d sold her family’s horse, whom she’d raised on their farm as a teenager. It broke her heart, but she didn’t know what else to do.  The horse was just a short-term fix: a month later, she found herself short of gas money.  So she took a job at a fast food restaurant, but they couldn’t offer enough hours, so she found a second job at a fabric store, working one job in the morning and the other at night. She attended class in-between, getting home at midnight, and beginning her day again at 6 am. Working left little time for studying, but she feared loans, since she had seen credit card debt nearly destroy her mother’s finances.  Running from job to school to job, she was exhausted, hungry, and stressed.

Six months later, I checked on Chloe, and found that college was done—she’d dropped out.  The two-job-plus-school routine led her to fall asleep in her classes, and she’d earned a 1.9 GPA—putting her on academic probation. Her program of study didn’t allow for that, and kicked her out.  Furious, confused, and unsure whom to talk to, Chloe bailed.  Several weeks later, a bank began calling—the student loan she’d accepted during finals week, when she was trying to find another way forward, was now coming due. Unemployed, in debt, and disillusioned, Chloe was dodging their calls.

Making it this hard to pursue a college degree is weakening our great nation. We have to return to a demonstrably effective approach to putting college within reach of all Americans by providing a meaningful Pell Grant targeted to the neediest families, distributed early enough to help students prepare for college, and stripped of all unnecessary requirements.  This should be matched by a difficult but necessary effort to drive down college costs by ending the ineffective tax credits flowing to wealthy families, stemming the tide of indebtedness by capping the interest rate on student loans, and using incentives to push states and institutions to return to a focus on providing high-quality postsecondary education, not glorified summer camps, that are accessible to all Americans.  My written testimony contains specific recommendations aimed at accomplishing these goals.

My grandfather is here today because he’s a great example of what happens when Congress acts on behalf of all students. The GI Bill made it possible for him to graduate from NYU in 1950 – the first person in his family to earn a college degree. He went on to graduate and postgraduate education and is still practicing as a psychoanalyst doing work he loves, alongside my grandmother, a writer.  He is my constant reminder of the wonderful lives Congress has helped the hard-working people of this nation lead by supporting their educational dreams.  I know we can do better right now for students like Chloe and the millions like her.  Help us find our way back to the original goals and intentions of financial aid, and we will all benefit.

Questions & Answers 

The central thesis of my oral testimony is when it comes to promoting equitable access to postsecondary education the combination of low tuition and modest financial aid is a superior approach to a massive program of federal student aid.

Q: Don’t we know that the low tuition model is inefficient and inequitable, since it subsidizes the wealthy?

A: No. That’s a theoretical supposition, and one that’s not borne out by much research.  Historically, the largest increases in higher education participation have occurred in places and at institutions of low tuition.  A long body of research indicates that financial aid alone doesn’t achieve the same results. The high tuition-high aid model fails because the subsidies never really reach the neediest students, and the costs aren’t borne only by the rich, but also by the middle-class.  The American middle-class is losing ground, and is unable to subsidize anyone else.  It is bearing the costs of this strategy with student debt, and this is unsustainable.

By keeping tuition low we help everyone. By providing aid for the neediest, we help the poor more.  A low tuition model is the same approach undergirding Social Security, one of our most successful programs.  Because we know from existing data that children from the country’s wealthiest families almost never attend public universities, by funding this approach with a progressive taxation system, we place a greater burden on the wealthiest 10% who will ultimately pay twice—once via taxes, and twice by sending their children to private schools.  That is far more equitable and efficient, especially since it will achieve the equity in outcomes that we desire.

Q: Aren’t you overreacting to what is essentially an informational deficiency on the part of needy students?

No.  The needs analysis and the distribution of aid is inherently complicated in the current system and this is why efforts to simplify fail over and over again. It is always difficult to distinguish the truly needy from the somewhat needy from the modestly needy; this is true the world over.  Complex systems arise to try and solve this problem, and the result is increased involvement in institutional policy-making and poorly designed formulas and regulations that inadvertently threaten the autonomy of colleges and universities and the long-term political commitment to equity in access to quality, public education.  The current needs analysis is undemocratic, bureaucratic, arbitrary and open to evasion.

Q: Are you proposing that we degrade the quality of our colleges and universities to promote access?

A:  Not at all.  I am proposing that we use taxes rather than financial aid to fund public colleges and universities, and I am proposing that we significantly increase their diversity by ensuring that more students from all family backgrounds can afford to participate.

If we want to keep costs down further, we should decline to subsidize the costs of attendance at private and for-profit institutions entirely.  Will these institutions suffer? Not if the market for their form of education can survive without government subsidies.  Why should government intervene in the free market to prop them up?

Q: Given that we now have income-contingent repayment plans, why should we care if students take loans?

A:  No American should be forced to take on debt of any amount simply because they want the opportunity to receive an education that every citizen now needs to fully succeed in society.  A century ago that meant high school; today it means college.  Paying off student debt each month under income contingent repayment might be “manageable” in terms defined by the financial industry, but it doesn’t mean it isn’t reducing the quality of peoples’ lives.

Q: Why should the public pay for private goods?

A:  First, it is ironic that these distinctions are drawn when it comes to students but not when it comes to institutions.  Higher education policy has been remarkably silent when it comes to distinguishing between public and private institutions, or between for-profit and non-profits ones.  Financial aid eligibility is extended to students at all types, ignoring important distinctions in how they are financed—even though in its current form student assistance is effectively a form of institutional assistance.  In fact, the historical record shows that much of the political support for providing aid in this way came from lobbyists from the private colleges, who hoped that aid would help narrow the tuition gap between publics and privates by encouraging public tuitions to rise. In theory, they thought free market financing would be equitable to the needy, promote freedom of choice, remove regulations, and improve the quality of education through greater competition.

Second, while many claim that the individual benefits outweigh the societal, the fact is that this is a function of the greater difficulty of measuring social benefits.  As the late Joseph Pechman of Brookings argued, higher education provides numerous societal benefits but even the state of the art in social science isn’t advanced enough to measure them.

Furthermore, there is no reason to distinguish among levels of education in terms of public financing rationales or between education and other provisions such as national parks or police protection.  Low tuition is justified by social necessity, and the costs of any subsidies should be returned via increased tax revenue over time—and if it is not, we simply need to adjust the income taxes.

Q: Are you suggesting that the growth in student loans was intentional?

A: In a word, yes.  Beginning in 1955, economist Milton Friedman began promoting the idea that higher education could be financed through student loans, and particularly through income-contingent repayment plans.  In 1968, he published an article arguing that higher education should operate without public subsidies in accordance with “free market” principles.  Several other reports by economists piggy-backed on these ideas, noting that this could allow tuition to rise to account for a larger percentage of the total cost of education.

But others were concerned, even then. Howard Bowen raised worries that loans would not be conducive “to the widening and deepening of learning” and admitted that “when large amounts of money are involved that I become apprehensive.”  Well, today loans are the new normal, and large amounts of money would be an understatement.

Q: Do you think this plan will ever be adopted?

A. Probably not, since the special interests backing it are incredibly powerful.  State governments will oppose it since it means they must spend tax dollars on education.  University administrators and faculty will oppose it since it diminishes their overall revenue.  Private colleges will oppose it for obvious reasons.  Free market economists will oppose it simply because it strikes them as irrational.

If you dislike this proposal, then please read my written testimony, since it contains numerous ways to improve the current system.

Q: Please summarize the benefits of your proposed model once more.

A:  Low tuition supplemented by need-based student aid brings five distinct advantages:

1.     It provides an acceptable level of financial risk for nearly all students.
2.     It is simple and non-bureaucratic
3.     The amount of financial aid needed is limited because of low tuition
4.     The institutional appropriations accompanying low tuition provide large amounts of capital for investment in institutional capabilities to meet student demand, and financial aid expands that for those serving more low-income students.
5.     It provides a government-assisted service that nearly every American hopes to access—it has strong popular demand.

0 Pell Funding: Is it Out of Control-- and Who Does it Support?

Catching up on my reading from the last few weeks and want to draw your attention to this bit of reporting from Inside Higher Ed.

Key lessons here:
(1) Pell spending leveled off in the last year.
(2) A very sizable fraction of Pell dollars are still going to for-profit institutions, but this has declined a bit in the last year.
(3) We could cut total Pell spending by $15 billion dollars (almost 45%) simply by deciding that public dollars cannot be spent at for-profit institutions.  This would make Pell policy consistent with the policies of most state grant programs.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is spending $3.3 million on efforts to "re-imagine aid design and delivery." I'm hoping they will revisit the decades-old decision to offer aid through a voucher system that rests on the premise that maximizing choices in an open market will promote the well-being of all students and the national interest in an educated citizenry.

But absent that, let's hope they push to create additional charts like these, including one that shows how much debt Pell recipients had to accrue in order to use their Pells at these institutions. In other words, let's get a sense of which states and institutions are matching this federal investment-- and which ones require students to make the match.

0 Making the Pell Grant Memorable

In a new policy brief just released by the Scholars Strategy Network at Harvard University, I make the case that the emotional meanings of financial aid can and should be enhanced to promote student success.  Sociologists and psychologists have long known that money has social value and that this can be increased through social connections.  The creators of the GI Bill understood this and took advantage of it by ensuring all recipients understood where funding for that program came from and what it meant. The same must now be done for the federal Pell Grant.  In fact, it could be done for all grant programs.  Governors, mayors, legislators, and yes, presidents, should get involved in conveying a strong, supportive message to the millions of needy yet promising students struggling every day to make it through college.

PS. Just got the following response on Twitter.

@saragoldrickrab TRUTH. as #Pell Recipient, I had no idea why I received 3K for my education.. just thankful w. no one to thank
— Dan S. (@destatter) August 7, 2012

0 Stop Subsidizing the Upper Middle-Class

Today Stephen Burd from Education Sector released a provocative new report that fully supports my contention (and that many others including Sandy Baum, Mike McPherson, Rick Kahlenberg) that we should stop subsidizing the upper middle-class with tax credits for college, and start focusing federal financial aid on those who need it most: Pell recipients.

Every time I've publicly discussed this idea I've been attacked as not caring about the middle-class.  This is a red herring-- suggesting that scarce dollars should be targeted to those who most need and will most benefit from them is simply good policy making. It's not about "who cares about whom."  As I pointed out following Obama's latest speech in Michigan, tax credits are demonstrably ineffective at their goals.  Burd calls a spade a spade when he adds, "Notably, while policymakers continue to tout the tuition tax breaks as a middle-class benefit, the introduction of the AOTC led to significant reductions in the share of the overall benefits going to families making between $25,000 and $75,000."

As a result, of the $55 billion distributed in college tax credits between 2010-2014, most will go to families earning over $100,000.  Tax credits don't make or break their children's decisions about attending or college, and are unlikely to even affect where they attend or how long they take to finish.  Instead they operate as a sort of "reward" to the family for having a college-bound child, and a little "apology" for the high costs. Of course these are nice things for the government to do for families, but since they don't change student outcomes, they simply aren't necessary.  Well, mostly.  The one caveat is that they may incur some political support for aid programs generally, a benefit that accrues to all recipients.  But that's very hard to demonstrate, and probably isn't worth their high cost.

Let's hope that Congress is listening, and stops attacking the Pell program as inflated and unbearable. What's clearly not needed are these tax credits.  Enough already.

0 Focus on Pell

The National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities has released a new report highlighting the use of federal student financial aid by states and congressional districts.  It is fairly obviously intended to make the point that campus-based aid-- which President Obama is trying to leverage to hold colleges and universities responsible for rising tuition and fees-- is a tiny amount of money.  I think it does that quite effectively. But what it also highlights is how important the federal Pell Grant is to state and local economies.


Let's take Wisconsin, for example.  In 2010-2011, just over 130,000 Wisconsin students received Pell Grants, valued at over $454 million. In contrast, campus-based programs (the SEOG and work-study) distributed funds to just over 35,000 students to the tune of about $34 million.


The contribution of federal student aid to congressional districts is sizable, but the relative contribution of campus-based programs is generally small. For example, in Paul Ryan's district, the Pell Grant contributes $36 million, while campus-based programs add just $2 million.  In Sean Duffy's district, the Pell contributes $45 million, and campus-based programs barely $3.2 million.  Of course, where there are more colleges and universities, districts benefit much more from campus-based programs.  Tammy Baldwin's district (which includes UW-Madison), receives $104 million from Pell, and just under $10 million from campus-based programs.


The variation in the contribution of campus-based aid dollars to economies in congressional districts illustrates the challenges Obama faces in getting his proposal passed.  In contrast, the widespread distribution of Pell dollars throughout congressional districts shows us why, generally speaking, the Pell is likely to survive for quite some time.  It also makes one wonder why Congress doesn't do more to focus on Pell, and even increase spending, especially given that Pell dollars clearly contribute to state economies-- both directly, and indirectly via increased human capital. 

0 NEW EXPERIMENTAL STUDY SUGGESTS FINANCIAL AID ENHANCES COLLEGE SUCCESS AMONG THE MOST UNLIKELY GRADUATES

The following is a press release issued by UW-Madison this morning

Results from an ongoing random assignment study of a private grant program in Wisconsin indicate that low-income students who receive Pell Grants and are unlikely to finish college get a sizeable boost in college persistence from additional financial aid. The findings suggest that directing aid to serve the neediest students may be the most equitable and cost-effective approach.

Researchers with the Wisconsin Scholars Longitudinal Study (WSLS) at the University of Wisconsin–Madison have been examining the impact of the Fund for Wisconsin Scholars (FFWS) need-based grant program on the educational attainment of its recipients since 2008. FFWS provides $3,500 per year to full-time, federal Pell Grant recipients enrolled at University of Wisconsin System institutions. WSLS researchers have collected survey and interview data on 1,500 students, including 600 grant recipients and a random sample of 900 eligible non-recipients who serve as a control group.

“Our findings suggest that making college more affordable for students who were initially unlikely to succeed in college increased their college persistence rates over the first three years of college by about 17 percentage points,” says Sara Goldrick-Rab, WSLS co-director and associate professor of educational policy studies and sociology.

However, since financial aid programs usually do not explicitly target this particular group of students, prior research has found that the average effects of need-based grants are often modest. “It’s common to focus only on the average effects of financial aid programs, but it’s clear that often policies work better for some people than others,” says Goldrick-Rab. “In this case, the Wisconsin grant really helped some students, didn’t help others, and may even have had adverse consequences for another group.”

While policy discussions about targeting financial aid often focus on financial need, the WSLS researchers also considered challenges faced by first-generation students and those with inadequate academic preparation. According to the study, students without college-educated parents and those with lower test scores were initially much less likely to persist in college, while students with high test scores and whose parents held bachelor’s degrees began with a high probability of finishing. The effects of the additional financial aid provided by the Wisconsin grant were very different for those two groups.

Initial findings indicate the program has a moderate positive impact, on average, on the educational attainment of grant recipients. “Enrollment rates didn’t improve much over three years. But the good news is that some students who were awarded the grant were 28 percent more likely to finish 60 credits over two years, increasing the chances that they will earn a bachelor’s degree on time,” says Doug Harris, WSLS co-director and associate professor of educational policy studies and public affairs.

Given the WSLS is the first random assignment study of a program with a similar structure to the federal Pell Grant, it may have important implications for that program, one of the nation’s largest in the education sector. According to Michael McPherson, President of the Spencer Foundation and noted scholar of higher education policy, “This study is the result of an extraordinary opportunity to bring high-quality experimental research to a vitally important question: the effect of changes in need-based grant aid on outcomes for students already enrolled in college."

Goldrick-Rab, Harris, and co-authors James Benson and Robert Kelchen present and discuss additional findings in a working paper issued by the Institute for Research on Poverty entitled “Conditional Cash Transfers and College Persistence: Evidence from a Randomized Need-Based Grant Program.” It can be downloaded, along with an executive summary, here.

The authors will discuss their results at 8 a.m. on Friday, July 8 in room 159 of the Education Building of the University of Wisconsin-Madison as part of a WSLS-sponsored conference entitled “Affordability and College Attainment in Wisconsin Public Higher Education.” More information is available here.

The WSLS is a collaborative effort among the University of Wisconsin System, the Wisconsin Technical College System, and the Wisconsin Higher Educational Aids Board. The study is also supported by UW-Madison's Wisconsin Center for Educational Research, Wisconsin Center for the Advancement of Postsecondary Education, and Institute for Research on Poverty. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the William T. Grant Foundation, and the Spencer Foundation provided funding for the research.

**
For more on this story please see coverage in Inside Higher Ed and the Chronicle of Higher Education, as well as the Wisconsin State Journal

0 Making Our Investments Count

In a few weeks my research team will release findings from our ongoing study of need-based financial aid, as we host a conference on Affordability and Attainment in Wisconsin Public Higher Education. Preparing for this event has given me the chance to think more about the things colleges and universities might do to maximize the substantial investments federal and state governments--and taxpayers--make in college students.

In particular, I propose that institutions begin to leverage their existing resources-- namely, their faculty-- to support the neediest students, those who enter with a low probability of success. While some might argue those students simply shouldn't be admitted, I take a different stance: given the labor market returns to college degrees and the widespread ambitions for college, it's incumbent upon higher education institutions to get "student-ready" -- rather than simply demanding that students get "college-ready."

I hope to begin writing about this concept of "student-ready" colleges from time to time over the coming months, but let's start with two ideas for how it could work.

(1) The Chronicle of Higher Education today highlights a program that assigned retired faculty to mentor first-generation students. Love this-- it's a win-win for all involved. Students without college-educated parents gain the benefits of having a college-educated "grandparent" of sorts who has not only attended but succeeded in college and worked at one!

(2) Here's an idea of my own. Policymakers should experiment with a new program to provide colleges and universities with incentives to place Pell Grant recipients in contact with faculty. Student-faculty interactions have been shown to enhance retention rates, and they are less common among low-income, first-generation students. A work-study type program could be a starting approach, but typical work-study jobs are located in cafeterias and libraries where students cannot form new connections with their educators. This approach should enhance the effectiveness of financial aid by supplementing it with increased faculty interaction. The federal government could begin with a trial effort using funds from the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act. The effort should be rigorously evaluated and used to inform future revisions of financial aid programs.

For sure, many faculty are overworked as it is. These kinds of things won't work everywhere and under all conditions. But let's say we tried them at four-year universities first. I'm willing to bet that even with uneven quality of mentoring, the effects on some students would be large enough as to raise persistence rates. The mentors will also benefit, and perhaps become advocates for these students and the programs that serve them. Student contact reminds us why we got into this biz in the first place, energizes us, and grounds us. We should be urged and rewarded for focusing that contact where it's most needed.

0 Increasing % Pell-- What Does it Tell Us?

Over the last several years, UW-Madison has increased its tuition at a higher rate than its System peers, thanks to the Madison Initiative for Undergraduates. That shift has not been accompanied by a decline in the percent of students receiving Pell Grants--in fact there's been a 5.5 percent increase in % Pell since 2000. Some are saying that this means that low-income students have been "held harmless" from the rising tuition, and that further increases would likely not lead to diminished economic diversity on campus. Furthermore, we are told, we can look to the outreach campaigns of institutions like UVA and UNC-Chapel Hill (home to Access UVA and the Carolina Covenant respectively) for models of anti-"sticker shock" programs that "work."

These claims are terrific examples of why it's a bad idea to make causal claims based on correlational data. If you want to make those statements, you can look to those examples and find support for your agenda. But you shouldn't.

In fact, the increase in the percent Pell at UW-Madison over the last few years is consistent with increases in % Pell at many colleges and universities nationwide over that time period. The cause lies not in successful outreach campaigns, or the failure of tuition increases to inhibit student behavior, but mainly in the recession. The recession had two relevant effects: First, many people were laid off-- and thus saw a temporary loss of income. Thus, students from families that in 2007 were not Pell eligible found themselves eligible for the Pell in 2008. The Pell is based on current and not long-term disadvantage. So an increase in % Pell doesn't mean you coaxed "new" low-income students into attending Madison or did a better job retaining those you already enrolled, but rather that a greater proportion of those who were already UW-bound (or already enrolled) now found themselves eligible for the additional help. Second, the Pell reduced the number of jobs available to students not enrolled in college--thus lowering the opportunity costs associated with college (e.g. foregone earnings). This could have independently increased both enrollment and persistence.

Furthermore, during the same time period, as part of the legislation that increased the maximum Pell the federal government also increased the family income (AGI) a student could have and qualify for the Pell-- from $20,000 to $30,000. Thus, a whole bunch more people became Pell-eligible during the period in which the MIU was implemented. And, the maximum Pell was increased-- possibly helping to offset the increase in tuition.

Thus, it should abundantly clear that it would be incorrect to state that the increasing % Pell at UW-Madison over the last several years is evidence that tuition increases do not inhibit enrollment of low-income students and/or that additional investments in need-based financial aid hold students harmless.

Same goes for the "success" of programs like the Carolina Covenant. Don't get me wrong-- the program seems great, and feels great, and the leadership is great. And for sure, the program's data looks nice-- they've seen an uptick in the representation of Pell recipients on campus and increased retention over time. As an evaluation they show better outcomes than prior cohorts of students. But as compelling as those numbers seem to be, they cannot be interpreted as evidence that these changes are attributable to the program itself-- and that's where the burden of proof lies. Indiana saw increases in college enrollment among the children of low-income families when its 21st Century Scholars Program was implemented, but reforms to the k-12 system were made at the same time, and the economy was booming. The program "effects" may have been little more than happy coincidence. We cannot rely on the potential for such happy coincidences when crafting new policies and making decisions about affordability.

It's time to get honest about what data can and cannot tell us. I've heard too many claims around here that it can tell us whatever we want. While that's undoubtedly partially true under the best of circumstances, it is especially true when we take no steps to collect data systematically and use sophisticated tools when analyzing it. If we were really committed to holding students harmless from tuition increases, we'd have commissioned an external evaluation (external= not done by institutional researchers) and made the data available for analysis. There are plenty of talented folks on campus who know how to do this work-- why not ask them to take a look at what happened under MIU?

0 Stand Up for SAFRA

It's all about the bankers-- again. As I've said in this blog numerous times, the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act is poised to dispense critical aid to low-income college students and the colleges they attend-- if the lending industry doesn't kill it first.

The savings that would result from a move to direct lending are substantial. Money would go directly to the neediest college students and to community colleges, a sector that is swamped and struggling in this recession. This investment in human capital is in so many ways a no-brainer-- it'll generate a large return, benefit folks in nearly every community in the country, and support the American dream.

Of course, the bankers will have none of it. In the current system they draw profits on the backs of students, lending them money and selling those loans to the government. They are so eager to hold onto those profits that they argue that the status quo is actually good for students. Disgusting, but not surprising. This is how the power elite maintains its position.

What's terribly sad is that some Democrats from states with pathetically low college attainment rates are actually buying into this hooey, giving credence to the banks' arguments that there are ways to save money while preserving their profits.

Senators Thomas R. Carper of Delaware, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Bill Nelson of Florida, Mark Warner of Virginia and Jim Webb of Virginia ought to be ashamed of themselves. Just look at the state of their higher education systems:

• Delaware ranks last in the nation in community college completion rates--just 10.8% of those who start at a two-year college finish an associates degree in 3 years.
• Nebraska's commitment to low-income students is pathetic--for every dollar in federal Pell Grant aid to students, the state spends only 19 cents.
• Arkansas has one of the largest black/white gaps in college completion in the country (16 percentage points)
  
• Florida doesn't make college affordable--the state's poor and working-class families must devote 24% of their income, even after aid, to pay for costs at public four-year colleges.
• Virginia is a place of great inequity--just 29% of black young adults are enrolled in college, compared to 42% of whites.

The children in these states deserve the support for an affordable higher education that SAFRA will provide. Their leaders should (quickly) stop stalling, develop backbones, and stand up to the banking industry.