And yet another posting about the College Board

Wow. The College Board's reputation continues to worsen. After another quick search for them on Google, I found a story here about kickbacks given to financial aid directors. The College Board settled after they were probed about these kickbacks. (And if you settle, guess what that means? Uh, you're GUILTY).

Do we suspect corruption? Maybe? Hmmm? Possibly? Hmmm? Could this situation be just ONE out of hundreds and hundreds of similar situations whereby other lenders also offered or continue to offer kickbacks to promote their companies at schools?

Let's talk about some irresponsibility, and I'm obviously not referring to students who take out loans. Nope. I'm talking about good ol' fashioned corporate irresponsibility. So the yapping mouths affixed to (I oftentimes presume) non-thinking beings that decry "oh, all these students are just sooooooooooooo irresponsible" need to check that statement at the door.

When it's a Friday evening, it's raining, and football games are on, the time is ripe to search for stories about the College Board. So as I nibble on football treats, I invite you to snack on a few more tidbits about good ol' CB. WARNING! This stuff WILL cause digestive problems. But you asked for it, and so did I. Here are your heavy, greasy mind-snacks:

-"The College Board, best known for designing and administering SAT and Advance Placement tests, today settled an investigation into charges that it swapped favorable pricing for its services to colleges in exchange for the colleges favorably marketing its student loan products under the heading 'preferred lender [my emphasis] -- a category that a wide ranging probe into industry practices found was often was unrelated to any favorable loan rate."

-Often, Cuomo's office found, this was done in exchange for a fee to the college, or an inducement to the financial aid officer in the form of consulting fees, which included $70,000 harbor cruises and shares in the lender's company.

-One former financial aid director at Johns Hopkins University who cultivated a national reputation as a stickler for ethics, according to the Washington Post, "accepted more than $130,000 from eight lending industry companies during her tenure, twice as much money as previously disclosed."

-Lenders who have reached settlements include many of the names familiar from the meltdown of the banking sector: JP Morgan Chase, Citibank, Bank of America, Wachovia, Wells Fargo, National City, Sallie Mae CIT/Student Loan Xpress among them.

Oh, wow! I'm shocked. They have bedfellows!

So, again, here's my question and it's really a question for Kim Clark, that reporter who we all know now - the one who wrote that sloppy article about the College Board's findings that student debt really isn't a big deal here: Why aren't you telling your readers about these things? I realize you have word limits, but you're probably a crafty writer. I bet you could reference these things AND also mention the fact that the College Board used to be a lender in your articles. Right?

Enjoy your Friday, friends! As soon as I hear back from Ms. Clark (wink, wink), I'll be sure to share her answer.

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?

BREAKING NEWS PART I: My debate with Patricia Steele and Sandra Baum

Education Matters sent word out to movement supporters and leaders about Kim Clark's August 12th 2009 article, "Is Student Debt Really a Problem?" This article details a recent report from the College Board. In the report, the findings conclude that student debt really isn't as troubling as people would think.

A particular comment sparked outrage (understandably), and a fury of posts, which continue to be added today (SATURDAY), ensued. First off, who wrote this report and what was the remark that caused all this justified anger?

a) The report was drafted by Patricia Steele and Sandra Baum.

b) Steele claimed that the College Board put out the report in order to "take down a notch the sensationalist stories about students drowning in debt [my emphasis]."

The College Board is described by Klark as an "organization made up of colleges." In truth, there's more behind their involvement with this sticky, nasty lending industry, but I'll save that treat for later.

To describe the obvious systemic problems that the media has finally begun to discuss as "sensationalist" was a poor choice of words for Ms. Steele.

Here's what I wrote to them in an email on August 13, 2009:

Dear Authors of Recent (Highly Problematic) Study Regarding Student Loan Debt:

I am a blogger and my blog is about education. I am getting a lot of traffic and also am a supporter and volunteer for Robert Applebaum's Forgive Student Loan Movement. You recently stated that you published your report about student loan debt to "take down a notch the sensationalist stories about students drowning in debt." (You said that, Patricia). I find that remark to be offensive at best and condescending at worst. Your findings are highly questionable and do not take many factors into account. The stories I read on a daily basis about the crushing debt that middle class families have acquired as a result of sky-rocketing college tuition costs are heartbreaking. I am glad I'm on the right side of this argument. It is clear that lenders and higher education institutions are very nervous. They're actually responding. That means this movement is growing and proving to be more than just an irritating itch! We are talking about working- and middle-class families who are trying to better themselves, and you say something like that? Have you even bothered to read their stories? As social scientists who do an excellent job of crunching numbers for the College Board, I can only presume you lack the ability to synthesize these accounts. Thankfully we have historians who can tell richer stories and don't just look at the "numbers." That's a bad way to understand the complexity of modern society. I will be blogging about this piece soon. I will not be the only you will hear from.

Respectfully, Ms. C. Cryn Johannsen

This email got the authors' attention. Patricia was the first to write to me. Most of these emails were essentially "public," because I had cc-ed Robert Applebaum, Alan Collinge (if you're not familiar with his name, Collinge is the founder of Student Loan Justice, and others). Patricia and I argued back and forth for an entire afternoon. I understand why we weren't making much headway. It was cordial but heated. I appreciated that response from Patricia. She reacted quite strongly at first, but then she cooled down. Later that evening I received an email from Sandra Baum. To say it was condescending is putting it lightly.

On several occasions I let them know that I would be writing about our exchange and including their remarks (the ones that were public). But after re-reading the correspondence, and what I've recently learned about the College Board, I've decided that an exercise in providing my readers with a detail by detail account of our conversation is superfluous.

After my final exchanges with Sandra and Patricia, I investigated the College Board and its past. Suffice to say, their relationship with lenders is MUCH bigger than I had originally understood. I realized that the debate was disingenuous . . .