Home > News > Should Colleges Foot the Bill for the Student Loan Crisis?

Comments 0 Comments

Forty-two years ago, President Richard M. Nixon—a Republican with impeccable anticommunist credentials—traveled to China for a series of meetings with Communist Party Chairman Mao Zedong. Some two decades later, Star Trek’s Mr. Spock turned that historic event into a political metaphor when he said, “Only Nixon could go to China,” meaning that only those with the most steadfastly held contrarian views are capable of effecting change in the opposite direction.

This bit of movie trivia came to mind when I read Ike Brannon’s op-ed on student loans in the reliably conservative Weekly Standard. In it, Brannon writes that exempting a particular type of debt from bankruptcy (student loans, in this instance) “belies the very reason for a bankruptcy law in the first place.” He goes on to compare lending practices for education loans with those that led to the recently overheated housing market, where demand-driven price inflation was fueled by reckless credit underwriting.

As radical as Brannon’s editorial epiphany might be—after all, it was a Republican Congress and presidential administration that expanded bankruptcy law to except from discharge all qualified education loans, public and private alike—the solution he proposes is anything but.

In a nutshell, Brannon wants colleges and universities to be on the hook for the loans that would become more easily dischargeable in bankruptcy. Doing so, he argues, “might make schools think twice before they admit a marginal prospect and charge them thousands of dollars for an education that might not do them much good.”

Ignoring what sounds like an unsubtle attempt at a little social engineering, Brannon’s plan would, in effect, aid defaulting borrowers solely at the expense of the schools that, in his view, are responsible for their financial distress. And what of the lending institutions that acted as go-betweens? Seems they get their money either way.

Re-Examining the Bankruptcy Option

There’s a more even-handed way of dealing with this problem. First, though, let’s consider the matter of bankruptcy.

There are two forms of personal bankruptcy. Under Chapter 13, the court oversees a reorganization of the borrower’s obligations so that much (if not all) of the petitioner’s outstanding obligations may be repaid over time under potentially more favorable terms. Under Chapter 7, by contrast, most of the unresolved debts are fully discharged, although when Congress overhauled the law in 2005, it significantly tightened the rules that govern these petitions.

The question is: Should fully dischargeable debts be the focal point of our attention in this context?

I ask because when you think about it, the government’s increasingly generous loan-modification plans are tantamount to a form of Chapter 13 reorganization. The PAYE plan, for example, permits financially distressed borrowers to limit their monthly payments to just 10% of their discretionary income and extend the repayment term for up to 20 years. The problem, however, is that not enough distressed borrowers are gaining access to this and other debt-relief plans.

Some are turned away because of program technicalities (past-due payments and loans that entered repayment mode too long ago, for example), others are unaware of the relief that’s available to them (lenders, investors and loan-servicing companies have been less than forthcoming about the options), and still more are precluded because their loans are not government-backed.

So, here’s a thought: What if the bankruptcy laws were revamped to include all student loan debt and the Chapter 13 guidelines for these were drafted to replicate the government relief plan that makes the most sense for the situation at hand? But don’t stop there. What if tax law were also changed to exempt the portion of the debt that ends up being discharged (similar to what was done for home mortgages during the economic crisis), and the credit bureaus agreed to expunge pre-modification payment histories?

Here’s an even better idea: What if all the government’s relief programs were made universally available without regard for the manner in which the subject loans were originated instead of forcing our kids into court?

How Schools Can Be Held Accountable

As for holding the schools financially responsible for their role in creating this disaster, although I agree with his fundamental premise—the schools have contributed to this mess—I disagree with Brannon’s simplistic solution. Apart from the preposterous assertion that education loan-payment defaults can be linked to less-than-adequate educations delivered to students who should not have been admitted in the first place, I can’t even begin to contemplate how to deal with the administrative horror show that would ensue when thousands of individual debt obligations are transferred from one payer to the next on a onesy-twosy basis. That is yet another example of formulating policy without taking the time to fully consider how the underlying process actually works.

A more equitable and operationally practical way to hold the schools accountable would be to use the institutional cohort default rates as a means for calculating pecuniary penance. For example, if a school’s CDR were, say, 10%, the institution would be responsible for paying into a fund that’s established to cover the cost for this program: 10% of the value of the federal grants and loans it received during the period the cohort students were enrolled.

Finally, as for the creditors—which, by the way, includes the federal government—if the borrowers are granted reasonable opportunities to repay more of their debts over time, and if the schools are forced to return a pro rata share of the financial support they received, it would be up to the lenders to eat the difference, since they’re the ones who approved these loans in the first place.

All in all, I am cautiously encouraged by what appears to be a shift in sentiment. Who knows? Perhaps Mr. Spock’s Vulcan proverb will apply here, too.

This story is an Op/Ed contribution to Credit.com and does not necessarily represent the views of the company or its affiliates.

More on Student Loans:

Image: Intellistudies

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

Credit.com receives compensation for the financial products and services advertised on this site if our users apply for and sign up for any of them.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team