Home > News > The University of Chicago Gets an ‘Incomplete’ for Its Student Loan Solution

Comments 0 Comments

The University of Chicago caused a stir the other day when it announced that come next fall, select members of its incoming Class of 2019 won’t need to take out student loans for their college education, thanks to the school’s No Barriers program.

Chicago joins several dozen other institutions as it sets aside a portion of its hefty ($6.7 billion) endowment fund and fundraising proceeds in the form of scholarships for low-income applicants who are worthy of admission to the prestigious university. The financial assistance is intended to help bridge the gap between the price of a degree and the sum total of what a subject family has the ability to contribute (by the university’s estimation), other grants and scholarships that are awarded to the student, and the economic value of the part-time work he or she will be required to perform while attending school.

Some institutions limit their assistance to the cost of tuition and fees, while others intend for that to also pay for room, board and books. Either way, it’s unlikely that every single dollar of cost will be covered by a college’s largesse. And that will leave families in the difficult position of having to address that shortfall by some other means.

There are those who would say that this is faux altruism—a cynical (not to mention expensive) way of changing the subject with regard to the ongoing debate on the ever-increasing price of higher education. Others may point out that for every discounted tuition it authorizes, the school will need to register an offsetting full retail-price admission, which could end up skewing the selection process in favor of wealthier but less qualified candidates. Still more would remind the rest of us that there’s a limit to any revenue-reliant organization’s generosity.

I’m inclined to believe that these schools are genuinely concerned about broadening the availability of good-quality education to a more diverse group of students. I can also appreciate the need to offset higher and lower-paying students. And yes, I’ve heard the chatter about the relaxation of admissions standards for the benefit of the revenue dollars that may yield—a difficult balancing act for schools that care about maintaining institutional standings.

What concerns me more, however, is that all we’re talking about is the revenue side of the equation.

Whether the money comes from full- or discounted-price paying students, governmental Pell Grants, other merit and need-based scholarships, or the non-operating income that’s derived from a college’s investment activities, this scheme is unsustainably focused on what’s coming in the front door as opposed to what’s headed out the back.

Sure, there’s been a lot of discussion about the need for holding down costs by weeding out inefficiencies. Yet the entrenched administrations of the nation’s privately and state-run schools continue to engage in excessive administrative staff-hiring practices and ignore the obvious organizational and operational redundancies that exist within close geographical proximity. It’s also business-as-usual with regard to extravagant construction projects and over-the-top fees the schools pay to celebrity entertainers they book.

Helping those who are financially less fortunate to afford a college education is certainly a noble undertaking. An equally worthwhile endeavor, however, would be to restore higher education’s fundamental value proposition for the benefit of everyone else, 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: AmmentorpDK

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