T.J. Newton
<< Home << Visit neoNewton.com!
Education .
Killing Us Slowly: The Cost of Higher Education
T.J. Newton

The College Access and Opportunity Act of 2004 is upsetting to many people because it prevents students from locking in a low fixed rate when they pay back their student loans. But there are other problems with the legislation, including what may amount to ideological discrimination that disfavors economically disadvantaged students who need to borrow money to receive a college education by restricting their freedom.

This bill targets poor and middle class students who need student loans by making loans more expensive, forcing students to take on additional debt, and preventing them from pursuing the kind of opportunities their wealthier counterparts are free to pursue. While student loans make education accessible to those who would otherwise be unable to afford it, access to the benefits of education are further reduced by this legislation.

[B]ased on a report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service... [t]he average borrower consolidating now would pay $5,500 more in interest under this legislation (US PIRG par. 3).

Section 423 of the legislation appears to prevent students from locking in a low fixed interest rate when they pay back their loans. If this legislation is passed, loans would instead be tied to the bond equivalent rate of 91 day T-bills, with a cap of 8.25% interest and a minimum of 2.3% (2.3% assuming the T-bill rate is 0%!)

[Section 423 (c) (2)] (E) Variable rate for consolidation loans- With respect to any Federal Direct Consolidation loan for which the application is received on or after July 1, 2006, the applicable rate of interest shall, during any 12-month period beginning on July 1 and ending on June 30, be determined on the preceding June 1 and be equal to--

`(i) the bond equivalent rate of 91-day Treasury bills auctioned at the final auction held prior to such June 1; plus
`(ii) 2.3 percent,

except that such rate shall not exceed 8.25 percent (CAOA Sec. 423).

Students with variable rate loans have had a cap for some time, but in 2002 the cap was lowered from the 8.25% used in this legislation to only 6.8% (US PIRG). This legislation raises it back up, and then prevents students from getting rid of the capped variable rate and getting a locked-in low fixed rate. A low fixed rate is sometimes below the "minimum" of 2.3% set in this legislation, and at the present time, below the practical lowest rate this legislation provides.

The bill also appears to place political and ideological restrictions on students and institutions, as well as placing requirements on professors and courses of study that may inhibit both the learning experience of the student and the instructional freedom of the professor.

Section 103 may be making a good attempt at protecting the rights of students from certain types of intellectual discrimination in the academic setting. But this can be a difficult problem to solve, and the solution may require more or less legislation. Although Section 103 seems to protect students, its meaning and intention can be interpreted in various ways. For example, does it mean guest speakers at a university must be asked about their religious beliefs? Does it mean that students, faculty, and staff must divulge their political, ideological, and/or religious views to the university, faculty, and/or student loan provider? Couldn't this actually result in discrimination? It is always a good idea to protect students from discrimination in any form, including intellectual discrimination. Although Section 103 makes a good attempt, this doesn't seem to be the best way of solving the problem. A great deal of thought and discussion is likely to be necessary before the best solution is found.

In another section of the legislation, Section 481, the bill may inhibit courses of individual study, or courses in which students are required to periodically conduct extensive research, field studies, or travel. It is hard to say what Section 481 does, if it does anything significant at all, because it is unclear what the authors of the legislation mean when they use terminology like the phrase "instructional time."

`(2) For the purpose of any program under this title, the term `academic year' shall-

`(A) require a minimum of 30 weeks of instructional time for a course of study that measures its program length in credit hours; (CAOA Sec. 481).

After raising interest rates on students and preventing them from locking in a low fixed rate, one must wonder whether the ideological restrictions that appear to protect students are in some way related to a kind of ideological discrimination that disfavors economically disadvantaged students who need to borrow money to receive a college education by restricting their freedom.

For example, a large student loan debt can lead to unfair treatment in the workplace, because employers know the debt burden will prevent the employee from quitting as long as the debt lingers, particularly in a poor job market.

To most people, the changes made to interest rates alone in this bill show the disgust among many wealthy, educated conservatives with the idea of the poor and middle class receiving the education sometimes needed to overcome unfair and oppressive treatment. Charging an extra $5500.00 only adds to the punishment. So it is a good idea to inquire into the meaning of the more ideological sections of the bill, such as Section 423, which deals with intellectual discrimination, and Section 481, which deals with instructional design theories.

What the legislation doesn't require is as important as what it does require, especially when trying to decide whether or not the bill is helpful to students. Consider Section 425. While it does require lenders to disclose whether or not the borrower has the ability to prepay, change their schedule, or change their plan, it does not require disclosure of how an overpayment is applied. So students who pay a little more than their minimum payment one or more months might simply be paying more interest to their student loan provider, who can hide the information in various ways.

[Section 425 (a)] (F) that the lender of the consolidation loan shall, upon application for such loan, provide the borrower with a clear and conspicuous notice of at least the following information:

[(F)] [...] (iii) the ability for the borrower to prepay the loan, pay on a shorter schedule, and to change repayment plans, and that borrower benefit programs may vary among different loan holders; (CAOA Sec. 425).

The bill also doesn't require lenders to report a student's positive payment history.

The bill fails to protect student credit histories because it does not require lenders to report both positive and negative payment histories on student loans to all national credit bureaus. Not reporting positive payment information can distort credit reports and unfairly and lead to higher rates on auto loans or home mortgages (US PIRG par. 12).

There is a lot that is in this legislation, and a lot that isn't in it. The bill hits students with higher interest rates to the tune of $5500.00 or more, doesn't help them pay it back in a way that's fair, and seems to promote intellectual and ideological discrimination as much as it seeks to protect students from such discrimination. The ideological motives of the bill's authors are unclear, but the bill does not appear to help the poor or middle class attend school and enjoy the benefits of education once they get out. High school graduates who need to borrow money to attend college are faced with the choice of no college or college and enormous debt. That doesn't seem like a choice at all. It seems like ideological discrimination that disfavors economically disadvantaged students by restricting their freedom, and it must be stopped.

Want to Know More?
If this presentation has you asking questions, read About This Site / Disclaimer, and be sure to check out neoNewton.com!
FEEDBACK
Feedback will remain anonymous unless you specify your email address here:
email (optional)
How did you like the presentation?
I liked it.
I thought it was okay, not great.
I didn't like it.
Was the presentation clear and understandable?
It was crystal clear.
It was a little hazy.
It was covered with a dense fog.
Comments:
Image verification
(To reload the image without Javascript, use the Reload button in your browser instead.)

Enter the Security Code displayed above:
Feedback, including comments entered above, will remain anonymous unless you specified your email address.
THANK YOU! -T.J. Newton


Abbreviations

CAOA: United States (2004). Cong. House of Representatives. College Access and Opportunity Act of 2004. 108th Congress, H.R. 4283. Washington: http://thomas.loc.gov.

US PIRG: United States Public Interest Research Groups. Consumer and student groups criticize Rep. Boehner's bill... Washington, DC: US PIRG. http://uspirg.org. May 20, 2004.

Selected works cited


United States (2004). Cong. House of Representatives. College Access and Opportunity Act of 2004. 108th Congress, H.R. 4283. Washington: http://thomas.loc.gov.

United States Public Interest Research Groups. Consumer and student groups criticize Rep. Boehner's bill... Washington, DC: US PIRG. http://uspirg.org. May 20, 2004.

© Copyright 1998-2004 T.J. Newton. Click HERE to read the terms and conditions of copyright. All rights reserved.