Home > Student Loans > Is Congress Offering More Empty Promises for Troubled Student Borrowers?

Comments 0 Comments

At long last, it appears as if some members of the U.S. Senate are acknowledging that student borrowers aren’t the only ones to blame for the $1.2 trillion mess we have on our hands.

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), chairman of the Senate Education Committee, says that colleges and universities should be held at least partially accountable for the financial consequences of student loan defaults. The idea is that the institutions that benefited from a practically open spigot of federally funded student loans should be made to disgorge a portion of the money they permit students to over-borrow — or when they fail to prepare them for adequately paying jobs — if students subsequently end up defaulting on their debts. Others agree with that notion of holding the schools responsible for students who have, as Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) puts it, “literally mortgaged their economic future” for the sake of their educational pursuits.

Never mind that the student-loan programs were enacted by this same legislative body, or that public and private lenders are equally responsible because of lending practices that rely on a borrower’s virtual inability to escape the financial obligation — even in bankruptcy — than they are his or her fundamental creditworthiness. That’s beside the point.

Way to go, senators, for finally coming around to an idea that is as old as time: Demanding refunds from merchants that have overcharged or failed to deliver as-advertised products or services.

Still, as hopeful as this legislative epiphany may sound, its transformation into results-producing lawmaking remains uncertain.

To start, the basis for this concept is the Cohort Default Rate, a calculation that measures the extent to which loan failures occur for groups of borrowers who have in common the year in which their debts first became due (typically after they left school—with or without attaining a degree, as nearly half of all students do, largely because of financial constraints).

Unfortunately, the Department of Education doesn’t believe that CDRs are a valid indication of systemic weakness. This, despite the fact that lenders, investors and rating agencies have long and successfully relied upon the same metric to reveal faulty credit-underwriting practices, improper loan structuring, ineffective servicing or, in this instance, all of the above.

Next is the nonsensical and thoroughly inconsistent timeline the ED uses to call past-due loans into default. Unlike for just about any other form of consumer debt, only federal student-loan borrowers are permitted to miss as many as nine to 12 months of payments before their loans are considered in default, versus three months for all others.

Just how much rope do we need to hand these borrowers to ensure that they’ll properly hang themselves?

Last, what’s not addressed is how charging back the schools would benefit those who default on their loans. Will their debts be forgiven? Will their credit reports be purged of derogatory payment histories in this regard? Will the IRS be directed not to tax their forgiven balances, as is the case for exonerated mortgage-loan shortfalls?

Forgive me for my skepticism, but unless these issues are appropriately incorporated into whatever legislation that results, we’ll have accomplished nothing more than yet another round of selling empty hopes to desperate souls just because they happen to represent an increasingly important constituency in the run-up to the next election cycle.

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: iStock

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