next »

[swsales]

I completely expect it when it comes to corporate news such as Fox.  A newspaper and website dedicated to Higher Education, where critical thinking is supposed to be part and parcel of every day life...I don't understand.

Case in point, today's News Analysis by Paul Basken.  Let's apply a little critical thinking (and admittedly some counterpoint) to some of the statements (or misstatements) in the article.

First sentence: "After months of artfully promoting doomsday scenarios for the federal student-lending system."

Commentary: Artfully definitely has an implied value to it.  The implied value being that lenders were deceptive or not completely forthright.  What isn't evaluated is the actual business case behind what the lenders are saying.  For example, if there was support to using this word, such as showing that earning margins wouldn't be what lenders have predicted would be something credible.  Of course, Mr. Basken does not provide this information.

Second paragraph: "...after losing more than two-thirds of its value last year, shot up 28 percent over the three days that the rescue plan was being polished and publicized. "...Albert L. Lord, said in describing the administration's terms to college financial-aid officials last week (The Chronicle, May 22). "I believe it's very good."

Commentary: This particular company's stock lost value last year chiefly due to the deal with JC Flowers.  That compounded with the credit-crunch and the College Cost Reduction Act.  This can be determined by reading the financial section of any free finance-related website.  Its also interesting that a percentage is used on the gain, but a fraction is used on the loss.  That is "artful" my dear commentator.  28 percent is much more impressive "sounding" than two-thirds.  Now, if you would've measured 28 percent vs. 66 percent (which is essentially what two-thirds is), the gain would've seemed paltry compared to the loss. 

Let's also quantify what 28 percent actually is.  The stock is currently trading 23.40 according to Yahoo financial.  So, 28% is a few dollars.

Sixth paragraph: "All students who want a federally subsidized loan could be assured of one if their college signs up for the direct-lending program. Yet only about a fifth of all federal loans are issued through that program, and some colleges that rely solely on the indirect, bank-based system are now realizing that the terms set by Congress and Ms. Spellings do not require the banks to serve them."

Commentary: Perhaps this is where critical thinking and reasoning would best be applied?  Why is it that only one-fifth of federal loans are through the direct-lending program?  As much to AG Cuomo's chagrin, I think we all know that Financial Aid Directors are not getting rich on the backs of the poor students because of cozy deals with lenders.  How is the direct-loan service?  What incentive is there for a program to provide good service if it will constantly be funded (through taxpayer dollars nonetheless)?  What incentive is there for innovation?  Remember, government contracts are often (not always) bidded to the cheapest, not the best.  Is that what we should really want for our loan program?  Is there are way to strike a balance between quality and cost?

Final paragraph: "Such a change could be a windfall for taxpayers and students if Congress recognizes this and adopts the idea on a large scale, says Donald M. Feuerstein, a former Education Department adviser who supports the concept. The government is paying subsidies on about $400-billion in loans issued through the bank-based system, Mr. Feuerstein says. If the government took ownership of all of those loans from the banks, he says, taxpayers and students would suddenly find themselves with billions of dollars a year that are now being paid to the banks."

Commentary: There are many factors not being discussed and this statement to include as a final paragraph is deceptive at best.  It implies that this will be good for taxpayers no matter what.  One major factor to consider is what about students who default on their loans.  In this system, and the direct-lending system for that matter, who directly bears the burden of default?  The taxpayer!!!!  As the economy further tanks, I think we need to ask what will happen to a student's ability to pay their loans.  Without the additional collection activities of guarantors, default rates will also increase.  There are other costs to discuss as well.  How much are we as taxpayers paying the companies that actually service for the direct-loan program and will support this one-year program?  What are the administrative costs?  Additionally, as inflation outpaces interest rates, we as taxpayers lose money.

That final paragraph hangs entirely on one word...could!  If every student payed back their loan on time without deferment on subsidized loans.  If the administrative costs weren't so hidden in the budget to actually do an apples-to-apples comparison of the programs.  I can go on about the various "coulds" needed to make that entire last paragraph hold any water.

I understand this was an "analysis" article and not a reporting.  There is weight in the value given such analysis since it has a de factor endorsement from the Chronicle.  Perhaps its time the Chronicle take a look at getting analysis from those who share contrarian views to Mr. Basken.

Future articles or "analysis" I'd like to see:

1. The hidden costs of all federal loan programs to the taxpayer?

2. An evaluation of services provided by the direct-loan and the FFELP?

3. What the CCRAA actually do for students in the long-term?

If these were done with true critical analysis without slant or guile, I'd be a happy suscriber!

[cranefly]

Why do educated people not know how to use an apostrophe?

[untenured]

Why do educated people not know how to use an apostrophe?

A new member just wrote a thoughtful post.  Let's cut swsales some slack.

Untenured

[doctor_torrseal]

Why do educated people not know how to use an apostrophe?

A new member just wrote a thoughtful post.  Let's cut swsales some slack.

Untenured

"swsales" is almost certainly a flack for a student loan lender, possibly one that was criticized in the article.  The whinging about stock price and FUD about direct lending, which everyone except lending companies agrees is cheaper for both the government and the students, read like they came directly off a publicist's memo.

If swsales' future posts are all about typical forum concerns, like conniving deans, parking permit prices, or undergrads complaining about grades, I'll eat a blue book.

[fiona]

Agreeing with doctor_torrseal.

This seems like Warts to me.

The Fiona

[voxprincipalis]

Agreeing with doctor_torrseal.

This seems like Warts to me.

The Fiona

The post is also full of grammatical errors (sentences without verbs, erroneous guesses at tense, improper punctuation, etc.). Additionally, there is some (perhaps willful) misunderstanding of what certain words mean as well as a desire for the reader to accept subjective opinion as objective fact. Both of these are ironic inclusions for someone who purports to use "critical thinking" to refute the original article. Those who wish to rail against lousy written reporting had better make sure that their own houses are unassailable.

But like doctor_torrseal, I welcome being proved wrong. I'll have my blue book with ketchup, please.

VP

[lincolns_ghost]

Hey, I have both types of loans having been at one of the direct lender test schools when they started. I know which are cheaper for me---oh, and which I've had less trouble with over the past few years in administrative matters.

Personally, I don't think the article was *honest* enough about what a better deal they are for the *student.*  Sorry, your profits were cut into!

[t_r_b]

First sentence: "After months of artfully promoting doomsday scenarios for the federal student-lending system."

Commentary: Artfully definitely has an implied value to it. 

So what? Were the doomsday scenarios being promoted artfully or not? If they were, then the word is well chosen. If not, then it's the wrong word: not because it is "slanted," but because it is wrong.

This obsession with what sounds "biased" or "slanted," rather than with what is true or false, is quite unbecoming, and unconvincing.