Opportunity Knocks

Until what? Until what?

Until I was handed the mic to talk to Secretary Duncan. But before I give away all the tidbits related to that, this opportunity almost slipped past me.

As I mentioned, I shot my hand up as soon as Sec. Duncan began to take questions. Even though I was sitting in the front row, I was seated off to the side and the volunteers who were helping hand out mics kept missing me. After each question, I anxiously raised mine again and tried to get the attention of one of the mic holders. No such luck! Sec. Duncan took four questions, and then he said, "I can only take one more." By that time a lovely, curly-haired woman in a sharp, gray suit stood behind me with a mic. She whispered, "we'll get to you next."

Yes! Yes! I thought. Don't blow this, Cryn! You have a lot of people to represent. Be calm. Be calm . . . You're gonna do well.

I looked at all the notes I'd been writing furiously. I flipped through Rob's proposal again, a document that I had now gone over for the thousandth time this week. I was prepared to start with an introduction that included six statistics:

(1) This academic year (2009-2010), there will approximately 6.9 million students borrowing for school

(2) There were nearly $131 billion in outstanding private loans in 2008. In addition, there is $544 billion in outstanding federal loans for fiscal year 2009, up from $502 billion in 2008, and that's according to the Department of Education

(3) The average debts of students graduating with loans rose from $18,796 in 2006 to $20,098 in 2007, according to the Project on Student Debt (so you, dear reader, are aware, the Project on Student Debt is staffed by employees of TICAS.org. TICAS was founded by Robert Shireman who is now the  Deputy Undersecretary of Education). Since student lending is inflationary (i.e., whether the overall economy is inflationary or deflationary student borrowing continues to go up), the average debt now is estimated at $23,000! (According to some education policy experts this amount of debt is reasonable. They also argue that borrowing for college is sensible. I bet my readers and thousands and thousands of people who belong to the FSLDM would beg to differ with those number crunchers. But I digress . . .)

(4) 2/3 of students borrow money for their college education

(5) Loans this past year (2008-09 academic year) grew around 25% to $75.1 billion*

(6) Our membership is now well over 228,000 individuals!

The curly-haired, sharply dressed woman whispered, "You're up next . . ." But just as she said that, Mr. Duncan said, "no more questions after this one."

Across the hall, a young woman stood up and began to speak about the abysmal pay that K-12 teachers earn. She was well-spoken and made a point to say that she has a sister who's a teacher and living at home.

Yes! I thought. If I was able to speak, I would say something about how it's not only teachers who are living at home, but all sorts of professionals. It's related to a larger issue: student loan debt! 

I sighed and told the curly-haired volunteer, "Oh, I'm so disappointed."

She replied sympathetically, "he is on such a tight schedule. He can only take so many questions."

"I know. I know . . ." I shook my head in disappointment and closed up my notebooks. "Maybe next time," I muttered.

But then something - in my mind - miraculous happened. Sec. Duncan agreed to take one more question. The volunteer tapped my shoulder and said, "You'll need to stand up to speak to him."

The cameramen, who are just a few feet away from me, swirled the camera around to tape me. I took the mic, tried to contain my nervousness and excitement. (Is anyone noticing that I'm shaking? I worried).

But now was the time for me to speak on behalf of hundreds of thousands of people (perhaps millions). I stood up, a light shined brightly upon me, and I began to speak:

"Secretary Duncan . . . first off, I want to say that I was one of the many who voted for change. . . . I could throw statistics at you, but we both know those statistics. Let me introduce myself," I said. The large crowd seemed frozen and painfully silent.

"My name is Cryn Johannsen, and I am the promotional writer for Robert Applebaum's Forgive Student Loan Debt Movement. We're asking for a bail . . . not a bailout, we're asking for help with this student lending crisis. There are too many student burdened with debt. Our group has well over 228,000 supporters. Robert and I receive terrible stories from people who are in really bad financial situations as a result of their loan debt. You're familiar with these stories, too. I've also reached out to the Reverend Jesse Jackson. I know that this issue concerns him, too. Mr. Applebaum's proposal makes a lot of sense, and is in line with Main Street ideas. It is my hope that you will be willing to sit down with us to discuss this proposal
further . . ."

There are two things that I found encouraging about Duncan's response and the way he responded when I stated who I was there to represent:

(a) When I mentioned the FSLDM's name, he seemed to be familiar with it. (Guess what that means? Many of you must be writing letters to him like I am!).

(b) His response was genuine and sympathetic. He recognized that it's a problem. However, I am not entirely convinced that the solutions he mentioned, i.e.,  the new IBR program , the change in Pell Grants, and the possibility of having one's loans forgiven (after - *gasp* - 10 years) if they go into a line of work that is of service to the nation.

What matters is that I was at a large gathering in D.C. and went on behalf of all of you. I was able to speak directly to Sec. Duncan. Afterward, many people came up to me and thanked me for what I said. One older woman from the "B" School told me, "I wish your group had been around when I got my MBA!"

The positive reaction from fellow University of Chicago alumni was just as uplifting as my chance to speak to Sec. Arne Duncan. After all, Chicago has a reputation for being conservative. (I won't bore you with the long list of the neocons from Chicago who informed Bush's decision to invade Iraq and so forth). Plus, many of the people with whom I spoke were older, and yet they understood the significance of our movement. One person told me, after I mentioned that many educated individuals are fleeing the country for better paying jobs, "that's called a brain drain."

So what do I now ask of all of you?

Please write to Secretary Arne Duncan. (His address is: U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20202)

Let him know that you heard I spoke to him, and you are writing to urge him to listen to Robert's proposal. Tell him that he has the power now to change things for hundreds of thousands, probably millions, of educated, middle-class people who are currently stuck in a financial debt hell. Share your personal stories about the things you dream to have - a home, a car, a child - but cannot as a result of the crushing debt you accrued as a result of going to college. You never cease to move me with your personal stories of struggle. (Most days I cry after reading about your travails, and that emotion moves me to work even harder, to write even more letters, and to debate for a good cause).


* Note to a unprofessional critic of mine: loan volume, average borrowing, cumulative debt may be different calculations. However they should all reconcile in some fashion when taking into account enrollment changes, prices, years, and what kinds of loans are included and which not. The Education Department seems to include more types of loans than, for instance, the College Board.


But these particularities don't matter. I've made my arguments clear and I am far from being "untruthful." Furthermore, I would never have a so-called friend attack someone and call them a "cult leader" and an "egotist." Fact remains: I'm on the right side of this mission. None of this "stuff," however, matters. After all, I am ill-informed and just contribute to "blog chatter." 

BREAKING NEWS! Our Dept. of Ed. Gman Hero is doing something heroic for all of us!

As many of you recall, I wrote about a modern day hero, Dr. Jon Oberg, the dutiful (G-man!) researcher at the Department of Education here and here . Dr. Oberg's work - the right type of work - led him to discover that lenders were receiving millions and millions of dollars from the treasury - they slithered past all sorts of loopholes to line their pockets with money. He tried to put a stop to it, went to his superiors, and informed them of his findings. Guess what they did to him? They told him to shut up, to move on, to attend to work related to the position he held (whatever that means) at the DOE.

Well, Dr. Oberg is back, and it's good news for our movement! He has filed a lawsuit, "seeking the return of $1-billion in excess student-subsidies to the federal government."

For those who read my blog, I urge you to the following things:

a) Please, please follow me (you must sign up to follow. Scroll down the page and see my list of "followers"). I'm not asking you to do this for my own desire for fame, but to really show that my readership has spiked for the Forgive Student Loan Debt Movement.

b) Once you have signed up to follow me, circulate this news about Dr. Oberg! Tell your friends, your family, your neighbors - tell EVERYONE. This lawsuit could be of enormous help to our cause.

I will also be writing a very disturbing piece about people who are in the enrollment management industry - this story will, in my view, help those critical of Marjorie Dillon (and thousands and thousands of others in a devastating predicament like her - we're talking about 4 generations of people who might be destroyed as a result of some fishy things that may have happened at Robert Morris University) see her from a different light A very different light. Stay tuned for that story . . .

But for now, spread the word!

Thanks again for your support.

Quod Est Veritas? Why isn't the Department of Education Putting Out Any Reports on Student Loan Debt?

So, I've been thinking about that data that was presented by the College Board in that frustrating article by Kim Clark. They manipulated the data coming from the NPSAS . We all know that. But I've been pondering things that are connected to journalism and integrity. I guess I'm old-fashioned, but I believe in transparency and honesty. The more I dig into this whole student lending disaster and dissect those who have the money, power, and the most awesome-est lobbyists around (not to mention the problematic and sloppy role that the DOE plays in this whole game as well as the senators whose pockets get lined by these nasty lenders, the universities and the benefits they reap from these folks, etc.) the more I realize I am old-school - I believe in ethics and admire a G-man like Jon Oberg. It also seems that journalists have forgotten things like integrity and transparency. However, sleepless nights lead you to gold mines on the internet - rest assured, dear readers, I have MUCH more to share. I am committing myself to the role of a watchdog, because those students and families who are really struggling (the sick, the destitute, and so forth) deserve to have a voice. As long as I can holler and put forth truths, I'll be here for those people.

There are two things that are important to know about why my thinking is troubled. (That doesn't mean it's fuzzy. Quite the contrary - it's crystal clear).

1) Why didn't Kim Clark tell her readers about the history of the College Board, i.e., that it had been a LENDER until 2007? I think that's important information to mention as a reporter, don't you think so too? Instead, Ms. Clark described them as "an organization for colleges." Hmmmm. What does that mean? For those of you already following me, you've heard my critiques and agreed. In short, I ask: where is Ms. Clark's journalistic integrity? Why wouldn't U.S. News and World Report state the objective facts?

2) Also, why hasn't the Department of Education put out a REPORT about student lending debt? Why won't the DOE do their OWN analysis of this data? Instead it is farmed out to the College Board who manipulate that data, as I mentioned above, and convince us that the student lending crisis isn't a big deal. Oh, wait, I'm sorry, it's all been SENSATIONALIZED, as Patricia Steele, claimed. (News Alert to those folks: IT FAILED to convince most of the readers, and don't even TRY and make that argument that we're all a bunch of ill-informed individuals who didn't bother reading the actual report. Ganz falsch. Entirely false).

I also don't understand why the NYT hasn't done fuller pieces about Applebaum and Collinge. This movement CLEARLY has traction. In fact, Applebaum's movement has surpassed 225,000 supporters on Facebook! That's fantastic, so why aren't these reporters doing more stories about Applebaum, Collinge, and blogs like this one? Does it not matter to them?

The Resurrection of the Dept. of Ed. G-man and America's Collective Trauma

This excellent blog - History and Education: Past & Present - hasn't been updated since December 2008. It is now an electronic archive, settling itself in the binary dustbins of the internet . . . only to be resurrected by Education Matters!

It's a tale about " a modern day hero and Dept. of Ed. G-man," named Jon Oberg. Let's stir up some dust with a story that was originally a newspaper article (gasp! do those things even exist anymore? I don't like that actual dust from those worthy things are disappearing) by NYT's columnist Sam Dillon:

1) Who is Jon Oberg?

Dr. Jon Oberg is a Former Dept. of Education civil servant. He is now retired, occasionally teaches, and writes good reviews about books on Amazon.com. (Take a look at his profile here . I recommend reading his review of Alan Collinge's book entitled, The Student Loan Scam: The Most Oppressive Debt in U.S. History - and How We Can Fight Back).

2) Who cares?

Oberg was a whistle blower at the DOE. In the 1990s, Oberg uncovered something problematic. Non-profit lenders were taking advantage of an archaic lending system based upon subsidies from the 1980s student-lending structure. This "loophole" was bothersome to the diligent civil servant, so he fought to correct it for years. In 2007 it was finally sorted out by the DOE. (These stories make me understand a perspective with which I don't normally understand - conservatives ranting about the inadequacy and corrupt nature of "big government." Funny thing is: the party that puts forth those arguments were dominating almost the entire time).

3) What else did Oberg do to make himself worth of being called a modern day hero?

This takes us back again to the era of excessive deregulation. This really began with Reagan - that's a good departure point. Reagan liked monkeys and deregulation. He thought FDR had corrupted the country with lousy, big-bad-government programs.

When I think of Reagan, I just imagine him eating jelly beans and yelling, "Boo! Boo-big-government!"

When Bush Junior came onto the scene, he had a cabinet full of people who knew the ins and outs of playing dirty politics on the Hill (throwback to Reagan years and his daddy's). These wolves also did a very good job of disguising themselves as sheep when they appealed to their constituents. But Bush's folks had more than that: they possessed the power of institutional memory, the money to lube the right lobbying machines, and also the "luck" of being in office on that fated day. 9/11. That's one piece of this complicated history that must be dusted off and examined further. The trauma of 9/11 hit all of us. Hard. All the while deregulation marched onward and upward.

4) Where's Oberg in this picture?

Conspiracy theories are for the naive. All that was running afoul was in the American public's face. Smashed in its face. Crammed down its throat. At the same time, Americans were too busy enjoying the freedom of easy credit. Who WASN'T being approved for second loans on their houses, new cars, big T.V.s? From this vantage point, things weren't that bad. Right?

But now we all know the bliss of the roaring '20s. So many writers have made that allusion, so bringing Daisy and devastating car wrecks into this will only lead us further astray.

As we all know the roaring era we just saw was squelched when the very financial empires that brought it to life collapsed. For a while, however, Americans were able to sustain high levels of amnesic euphoria. That's related to trauma. But as trauma grows, shifts, it eventually moves to feelings of terror (remember all those boogeyman? Especially that one that nobody ever found. What was his name again? Oh, yes, Osama Bin Laden). The cycle of trauma undulates in frantic ways. The terror is felt one moment, only to be replaced by numbness. Even worse, trauma can lead to complete disengagement. People retreat from themselves, their families, and their communities. Trauma cast its shadow across the cultural and social landscape of this country.

Numbing and the desire to escape were part of our previous era. We numbed ourselves through buying bigger homes, re-doing our kitchens, and enjoying fluff like Sex & The City. Indeed. When the pendulum of trauma swung in such a way to induce collective numbness, things seemed to be working well for all of us. That trauma has been lifted, and now most of us are angry and sad.

Oberg wasn't asleep, however. He was wide awake. It was apparent to him that deregulation posed a disastrous threat to students, the economy, the nation's well-being. In 2003 he approached his superior and expressed concern that the student lending industry wielded too much power over their debtors. Not only that, Oberg was concerned that "student lending companies were improperly collecting hundreds of millions of federal subsidies and suggested how to correct the problem."

Oberg was ignored and assigned new tasks. He was told that postsecondary education finance was not of his concern. Who said that to him?

Let's call him out. Grover Whitehurst, a political appointee, said that to Oberg in November 2003. (Incidentally, Whitehurse still works for the DOE). Since Oberg was set to retire at that point, Whitehurst in one of those famously bureaucratic ways ever-so-politely told him to shut up.

Whitehurst, who was a Republican appointee, used bureaucratic brass to stop Oberg. That's right. A Republican appointee took advantage of the government bureaucracy to get his way. Huh. I thought that's why those people hated Democrats? But I digress.

The student lending industry profited enormously from Whitehurst's refusal to implement Oberg's plans to cut of these subsidies to them. That's right. With Bush in office and his minions pushing the American people to embrace a war against Iraq, this industry of $85 billion dollars went unchecked.

The dustbin has caused me to sneeze too much, so this will be continued soon . . .