Those 56% seem to be completely divorced from the public mood. Escalations in college costs combined with the often usurous lending practices of the corporate lenders, has implanted the idea into the public mind that academe is now little more than a spiders web of moneyed interests. As a result of this system too many of the middle class have paid to enter it, but after 'pomp and circumstance' is well forgotten, they can never pay enough to get out of it. It may be a quiet crises along the surburban lanes, but it is no less desperate and widespread. And when institutions such as the one I work for, make liaison with these companies so close that the distinction between college and lender is lost, then that will only increase the publics perception that academe is not there to serve, but rather there to serve them up to debt holders. There are clear dangers in using assesment programs provided by these companies which financial aid offices often ignore. GOP members opposing any meaningful reform, not quite surprising insofar as they've had Buck McKeon as an example. Essentially many in the GOP are so deep in the pockets of the educational corporate lenders that any light, the distant voices of public concern, and even God can't find them. It would seem that 56% of colleges and some of our representatives would have some ability to realize that the old game is up, the public has had quite enough and will not support this system for too much longer. And for those of us lost souls on the professorial end, there is now no amount of genteelity and tweed we can exert which is going to cover for that rising public unease. For faculty this is going to be a very difficult few years, for we are the public face of a system which is causing substantial public resentment and doubt. But our own administrations and representatives seem oblivious to this condition, being so accostumed to a dysfunctional and detrimental educational funding system that they cannot realize its time for a cure. But social diseases do tend to have that effect...

In higher ed CHANGE is a four letter word.

I don't buy the outcomes of this study. My sense is that most will go along with no problem at all and many will start sooner rather than later to ensure that there are no hiccups for students. And what about the others after July 1, 2010? Then they're with the program; or out of business. The GOP has no power over this one. The train has left the station is scheduled to arrive next July.

As a parent of a student who will be a senior at an expensive private college this year, I have just successfully completed applying for a PLUS loan via the direct loan program, which my daughter's college switched to and made mandatory for me if I wanted a loan other than simply using a charge card or negotiating a private loan. It was about a thousand times more difficult than in the the previous 3 years, when I would contact a lender or a bank and have a loan in 10 minutes. Getting a pin and filling out the electronic master promissory note was a real trial, one that I almost failed. The dollar cost to me of the loan through this program is actually a bit higher than if I had gone through the bank I used last year, and could have used again this year if the college had allowed it. The repayment procedure is identical to that which I am doing on my loans for her for the first 3 years. What are the wonderful aspects of this direct loan program? I sure hope that there are some, for the schools. There certainly are none for the parents.

FFEL and Federal Direct loans are peas in a pod. I don't know where folks are coming up with this idea that student debt burden will be wonderfully eased when all schools are under the Federal Direct program. Most of us agree that high student debt burdens are problematic. If Congress and the President really expect to save billions through the switch to all Federal Direct, they should throw over-burdened borrowers a bone and use some of the savings to reduce interest rates. Instead, an early version of the House bill would have taken interest subsidy away from graduate/professional student borrowers.

It won't be a matter of student debt burden being 'wonderfully eased' as a result of the transition to direct lending. Inherently tuition creep as a result of inadequate government support for higher education, and glitz and glitter for marketing will undermine some of the benefits. However what the transition will do, is more of a long term beneficial effect for student debts. The biggest moneymakers for the corporate lenders have been the fee enhancements, capitalization of interest, and little tricks like not crediting payments in a timely manner to ensure the fee enhancements do kick into play. There's a reason that one of the CEO's of the major players was bragging about the 220% fee increase revenues he'd engineered for his company. Appalling and ultimately built by creating a crushing debt burden for the middle class. The middle classes enter higher education to gain the American dream, but are often served up as a debtors entree in a seemingly never ending orgiastic feast for these corporate lenders. At least with the direct lending many of the lenders tricks propagated to the corporate lenders might be mitigated for the new generation entering college. Especially if Congress and the USDOE can resist the lobby pressure to allow those companies a presence in the new lending model. That would be like allowing a demimonde in as a candy striper in a syphilis ward. Of course, until meaningful consumer protections are restored to both federal and corporate educational loans we still have a social and economic tsunami in the building. But at least some incremental reform is better than the same chronic ethical failures of the old educational lending system which has devoured an entire generation...

Shouldn't the decision rest on those of us who are on the "front lines?" The results of the survey are clear indication that the onus should ultimately be up to each individual institution. If the government wants uniformity (and has the people's best interest at heart), then every school should offer the exact same education for the exact same price. Politics/government and education have never meshed well together. My presumption, though, is their heart is in the right place, but they just have misguided intentions.

Does anyone know what will happen to those of us who will now have two different loan servicers - like SallieMae from earlier years and DirectStudentLoan for the last ones? I consolidated when the rate was very low but what happens now?

Likely any further attempts at consolidation could be blocked. One of the many spiffs given to the corporate lenders was that generally one can only consolidate once. And often those consolidations had to be solely on their terms. Shopping for better financing was largely precluded. Additionally last year, although they continued to accept consolidation applications and even encouraged troubled borrowers to do so-the dominant companies such as Sallie Mae and Nelnet had made the unilateral decision to not continue with consolidations. That trapped many student borrowers into a very poor position. With the current consolidation program started by the USDOE (the one with forgiveness for a certain amount of years in public service, and income contingent repayment) its unclear who and what type of loans will be eligible. There has been some hue and cry to extend this program to the FFELP loans, but no doubt there's a lot of insider lobbying to make sure it is not extended too far. One of the problems is that the USDOE has so many implants from the corporate loan industry, that getting proper information is difficult. And often reform policies from the top are compromised because these are sometimes implemented by people who have other agendas not related to public good. A good example would be the covering up for, and prevention of further investigations of the 270 million dollar NNC overbilling of a few years ago. Or the attemot to back engineer a increase of percentages on subsidies already paid. It must be incredibly frustrating to be the investigative reporters for such as Chronicle, or Inside Higher Ed, or an independent, and be writing these exposes of questionable or outright illegal conduct-and never see much done to correct the problems.