Take action today! Help cut student loan interest in half

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

mshheaddoc

Howdy
Moderator Emeritus
20+ Year Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2002
Messages
43,154
Reaction score
87
AMSA has an email form and contact information (if you want to call) your local representatives to lobby for lower interest rates. To send the email click here, and scroll down.

Please check it out and let your reps know what you want!

Members don't see this ad.
 
If what I read about this is right...law of supply and demand says this is going to be one huge mistake
 
I'm trying not to make my last post sound like trolling.

I'll be back later to post my reasons for believing this not to be the solution to student debts. Its lunch time now, and I'm going to go enjoy my sandwich and be back with reasons
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Over 80% of medical school graduates now carry educational debt.
Since when does debt equate negativity. The federal government gives so much relief for carrying debt that it's almost laughable. I know people who carry mortgages and other debt, just to reduce taxable income and so forth. Any financial advisor can easily clarify between good debt and bad debt, and most will recommend carrying some form of debt. Most of us are ignorant of the tax laws and codes reasonably don't think of ways to use them improve our situation, legally. Also, of all the debts I would rather have, educational debt is perhaps the best. With interest rates on car loans, mortgages, and credit cards, why should I care about 6.8% subsidized, deferred, federal loan.


The median debt for public medical school graduates now exceeds $100,000, and the median debt for graduates of private schools is $135,000. According to data from the Association of American Medical Colleges, medical education debt was 4.5 times as high in 2003 as it was in 1984, far outpacing the consumer price index. Moreover, 25% of students have debt exceeding $150,000, and some new physicians have debt over $350,000.

Is this factoring in inflation? Besides, most salary have a COLA(cost of living adjustment). We can't really have it both ways. Physicians salary have also increased over this time, so we can't cry because cost of becoming a physician is rising with the price we receive from being physicians...

In the 2002 AAMC Graduate Questionnaire, 32% of medical students cited that their level of debt influenced their specialty choice.

Is this a bad thing? It means people actually considered economics when they decide to take on such high loans. I would hope that physicians would consider their future income and relate it to the amount they are willing to invest in themselves today.

As a result, fewer students choose to serve communities where lack of access and disparities in care are most apparent. A recent AAMC national survey showed that the cost of attending medical school was the #1 reason why qualified minority students chose not to apply to medical school.
Really, I need more proof than this. Beside it's common fact that physicians can maintain a comfortable standard of living while paying back their students loans over a 30 year period. If it's really the #1 reason, then maybe we need to do a better job of educating our physicians and possible physicians about value calculations.


As our nation struggles to increase racial diversity in health care and reduce health disparities, the student debt crisis is exacerbating the shortage of minority physicians and severely hampering improvements in the care of underserved populations.
This is the worst argument ever put forth that I refuse to believe it. About 90% of students entering medical schools cannot pay the tuition without loans. Why am I supposed to believe that this problem is only exacerbated in the minority group?


And now for a few of my own reasons
I believed this bill applied only to undergraduate loans, but it seems I'm wrong because the AMSA seemed to have put its gloves on and readies itself for a fight.

1. It eliminates (to some extent) risk aversity. By decreasing loans to 3.4%, everyone know believes loans are affordable. The problem with loans has never been the high interest rate, but rather, the high principle. This creates a false sense of affordability, and I will not be surprised to see more students willing to carry higher principles because of lower interest rates. Most end up complaining that they are in so much educational debt that they cannot expect to pay it back. It does make me wonder why they decided to take out the loan in the first place. Did people really believed it was free money and there was nothing to consider before signing for the loan? When I hear professionals (people with more than undergraduate degrees) making this comment, it makes me cringe and I wonder: Did you not look into the earning potential of your future career before deciding how much you would invest in yourself? Would anyone invest 200K into a business that makes only 40K/year? Then why would you do that to yourself.

2. It is shifting the problem. It's targeting the symptoms without actually trying to solve the illness. The problem simply is that people believe education(more of it), is necessarily the key to economic success. While education helps, there is a diminishing return to each additional year of education after a certain point. With interest rate decreasing, I see the burden of education debt only being carried by more people since many are "able to afford higher education."

3. It sends the wrong message. Rather than tell our children that they need to make value assessment of an investment they undertake (themselves included), it instead tells them that it's okay, the federal government will always help if they overinvestment and cannot pay the price. If you believed that your future income will allow you to pay back the loan(comfortably), then make the investment, if instead you believe that you cannot pay it back in the future, then maybe that Harvard education is not really a good investment after all. I say this because I believe interest rate to be at a economically sound level that the market can bear, and playing with this price is simply a message that the government believe that education is the answer to all our economic woes. Americans don't plan for success. A huge number of retirees do not have enough saved for their retirement and many more will lose the little they have due to major illness. Somehow I don't believe our money issues is attributed to interest rate, it attributed to poor planning or no planning at all.

4. Just because it's the American government does not mean it can price fix. This is a cut-clear case of price fixing, and should be deemed illegal according to the §1 of Sherman Anti-trust law. Too bad the law doesn't affect our government, or else, I would be writing a letter to the FTC or Justice Department instead.

5. Cutting interest rate is short-sighted. Even the Fed realizes that, that's why they constantly meet to keep deciding on their next move. Is the legislative branch going to have quarterly (if not more) meeting on its next short term solution.

I'll add more opinions if I can, but I would rather not be fired. So it is back to work for me, maybe I'll repost when I get home later tonight.

A word of note: An economist is an expert who will know tomorrow why the things he predicted yesterday didn't happen today.
 
In the most recent AARP Bulletin, American Association or Retired People, there was a short, but interesting fact sheet. I don't remember exact numbers, but these are approximates:

The average income 50 years ago was about $5,000. Today, it's about $45,000.

The average cost of tuition 50 years ago at Harvard was $800/yr. Today, tuition at Harvard is about $32,000/yr.

There were other comparisons, for example, housing. Almost all comparisons relevant to large purchases point to the fact that although incomes have been rising, in some areas, specifically housing and education, nowhere near enough to keep pace with inflation.

Based on their example above, 50 years ago tuition at Harvard was approximately 16% of a year's average income. Today, it is 71%.
 
HOUSE SCHEDULED TO VOTE ON STUDENT LOAN RATE CUT
The House is scheduled to vote Wednesday on a proposal to cut interest rates on some student loans. Proposal details:

• Interest rates on eligible loans would be reduced to 3.4% from 6.8% over a five-year period. The rate would fall to 6.12% in 2007, 5.44% in 2008, 4.76% in 2009, 4.08% in 2010, and 3.4% in 2011.
• The rate cuts would be limited to new subsidized Stafford loans for undergraduates. Subsidized Stafford loans are provided for students who show financial need.
Interest rates on unsubsidized Stafford loans, which are available to all students, would not be reduced.
• The U.S. Public Interest Group's Higher Education Project estimates that the change would save the average borrower $4,420 over the life of the loan once the rate cut is fully phased in.

By Sandra Block


Complete article

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/college/2007-01-12-college-tuition-usat_x.htm

According to this article, these new interest rates, if ratified, will not apply to unsubsidized Stafford loans and are applicable to undergrads only.
 
According to this article, these new interest rates, if ratified, will not apply to unsubsidized Stafford loans and are applicable to undergrads only.

That is what I had always thought. This is why I found it odd that the AMSA was actively getting involved.

I believed this bill applied only to undergraduate loans, but it seems I'm wrong because the aamc seemed to have put its gloves on and readies itself for a fight.
 
HOUSE SCHEDULED TO VOTE ON STUDENT LOAN RATE CUT
The House is scheduled to vote Wednesday on a proposal to cut interest rates on some student loans. Proposal details:

• Interest rates on eligible loans would be reduced to 3.4% from 6.8% over a five-year period. The rate would fall to 6.12% in 2007, 5.44% in 2008, 4.76% in 2009, 4.08% in 2010, and 3.4% in 2011.
• The rate cuts would be limited to new subsidized Stafford loans for undergraduates. Subsidized Stafford loans are provided for students who show financial need.
Interest rates on unsubsidized Stafford loans, which are available to all students, would not be reduced.
• The U.S. Public Interest Group's Higher Education Project estimates that the change would save the average borrower $4,420 over the life of the loan once the rate cut is fully phased in.

By Sandra Block


Complete article

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/college/2007-01-12-college-tuition-usat_x.htm

According to this article, these new interest rates, if ratified, will not apply to unsubsidized Stafford loans and are applicable to undergrads only.
They why waste the money and time for this? Although it would help future pre-meds ...
 
They why waste the money and time for this? Although it would help future pre-meds ...

Because most of politics is a waste of money and time.

Why the same House that was trying to extend their work week decide to take a vacation because of the UF-OSU game, thats started at 8pm that day.
 
What a bunch of utter BS. :mad: Democrats suck and so do Republicans.
 
Make College Affordable Act of 2007 (HR 193 IH )
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make higher education more affordable by providing a full tax deduction for higher education expenses and interest on student loans.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Even if this bill passes it will do jack squat. Tuition will just rise even further to offset any lowering in the interest rate. Just take a look at what happened to housing prices when interest rates fell over the past couple of years. :thumbdown:
 
HOUSE SCHEDULED TO VOTE ON STUDENT LOAN RATE CUT
The House is scheduled to vote Wednesday on a proposal to cut interest rates on some student loans. Proposal details:

• Interest rates on eligible loans would be reduced to 3.4% from 6.8% over a five-year period. The rate would fall to 6.12% in 2007, 5.44% in 2008, 4.76% in 2009, 4.08% in 2010, and 3.4% in 2011.
• The rate cuts would be limited to new subsidized Stafford loans for undergraduates. Subsidized Stafford loans are provided for students who show financial need.
Interest rates on unsubsidized Stafford loans, which are available to all students, would not be reduced.
• The U.S. Public Interest Group's Higher Education Project estimates that the change would save the average borrower $4,420 over the life of the loan once the rate cut is fully phased in.

By Sandra Block


Complete article

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/college/2007-01-12-college-tuition-usat_x.htm
So is the general consensus that this vote is totally meaningless to us? Also, what does it mean when they say they are cutting the interest rates on subsidized loans? I thought subsidized loans didn't have any interest.
 
So is the general consensus that this vote is totally meaningless to us? Also, what does it mean when they say they are cutting the interest rates on subsidized loans? I thought subsidized loans didn't have any interest.
They have interest, but the federal government pays it while you're in school. When you graduate (+ grace period), the interest starts to accrue, so that's when you'd start saving money. You'd probably start paying off unsubs first (since it's 6.8% still), and your subs would accrue at 3.4% (or whatever rate it started at since it's phased in).

Also, I agree that this sucks.
 
So I called my Congressman's office today. This bill is a total farce. I can't believe they got elected on the premise that they would cut the loans to 3.4% and then let the greedy loan companies lobby to cut out grad students. I have absolutely no idea why AMSA is taking a position on this bill.

I've argued this before, but I really think that medical students should have the lowest interest rates of any type of student because we have such a high graduation rate, and therefore loan companies have less of a risk loaning money to us.
 
And this $6 billion bill somehow passes. God Bless America
 
H.R. 5 actually hurts medical students.

As Senior Vice President of a FFELP Consolidation Lender and someone with a background in Medical education, I looked forward to this legislation. Unfortunately, the bill passed by the House yesterday leaves, as you are well aware, much to be desired.

Not only does the bill simply address the smallest loan group (Subsidized Stafford) it purports to assist paying for this by increasing fees/decreasing stipends to lenders, (and more specifically consolidation companies).

I am sure the SDN community is well aware that med students have been at the forefront of using consolidation as a means to temper the high costs of a medical education. Unfortunately, this bill will provide a direct hit to some of the incentives that smaller consolidation lenders are able to offer (See H.R.5; Items #7, #8). It is no wonder the larger lenders were lobbying for this portion of the legislation.

As of now, we are able to offer a total of 2.25% in Rate Reductions for Auto-debit and on-time incentives. We are also able to make the 2% (On-Time) portion of the reduction permanent once it is earned (sans default). Throw in the ability to go into a residency deferment without losing borrower benefits and you can understand why larger lenders were interested in these details.

After July 1st, (assuming this legislation passes) look for the availability of benefits like these to disappear as margins tighten.

A medical student with $100,000 in Federal debt looking to consolidate stands to take a hit of approximately $25000 dollars over a 30 year consolidation; far outweighing the potential to save approximately $4000 that this legislation offers.


This is a small first step indeed.

Regards,

Thomas

Thomas Heneghan

Senior Vice President

*link removed by bananaface*
 
Interesting that there is no provision limiting tuition increases. So great - undergrads can get 3.4% knocked off of their interest payments - but what prevents the schools from raising tuition by a comparable amount?

Also - why on Earth were the med students cut out of this?
 
Interesting that there is no provision limiting tuition increases. So great - undergrads can get 3.4% knocked off of their interest payments - but what prevents the schools from raising tuition by a comparable amount?

Also - why on Earth were the med students cut out of this?

It is doubtful that schools will limit their tuition increases to 3.4%. Sadly, on average it's been going up 5-7% a year. All graduate students were cut out, as were all undergrad students who do not show need. This is just an interest rate cut, over a 5 year period, on the subsidized portion of the Stafford loans for undergrads only, from what I understand.
 
And, as the smallest of quibbles, did you all get a load of the fact that the 3.4% interest rate will only last only 6 months when the rate takes effect in 2011? Starting in 2012, it'll be reset to 6.8% when this legislation expires.
 
And, as the smallest of quibbles, did you all get a load of the fact that the 3.4% interest rate will only last only 6 months when the rate takes effect in 2011? Starting in 2012, it'll be reset to 6.8% when this legislation expires.


The devil is in the details. While this proposal does seem to do a limited amount for students, it did much more for the government. One, it significantly decreased the amount debt collectors can keep in default collections. It use to be 25%, now it will be 16%. Two, when loans are consolidated, the government will receive double the amount from the consolidating institution, it was .5% and is now 1%. Three, it will reduce the amount to 95 cents from 97 cents that the government has to pay for unpaid student loans.

Wells Fargo and the other 85 student lending instutions and their lobbyists are not happy. However, their retort was very telling. They stated that what this legislation costs them, they will pass down to the students. "Those provisions drew the ire of America's Student Loan Providers, the Wasington-based lobbying association for 86 lenders, which warned the banks would pass along additional costs they incured under the rate-cut proposal."


So, while this legislation will help students before expiring 6 months after it takes five years to go from 6.8% to 3.4%, the government has improved it's position with these companies. We'll have to wait to see what the lending institutions meant by their remark. My feeling is that student lending organizations are primarily money making instutitions, anything that effects their bottom line will effect their clients, students. This is also true with insurance companies, anything that effects their bottom line will have a trickle down effect.
 
see title

Letter from LAD to Membership

Re: Student Debt and HR 5



Dear Friends and Colleagues,



I want to thank you all for the hard work and effort that went into AMSA’s support of the National Day of Action on Student Debt. Along with our partner organizations in the Campaign for College Affordability, we were able to secure the passage of H.R. 5 – the College Student Relief Act of 2007.



The turnout of AMSA members in support of the National Day of Action was truly amazing. In one day, we logged over 12,650 actions through AMSA's Legislative Action Center (http://www.amsa.org/legislativecenter/) including over 2,000 phone calls to 144 Senators and Representatives, sent 471 Congressional offices more than 8,700 letters by email and printed out an additional 1,600+ letters to be sent by post or fax. Our contribution was recognized not only by those Congressional members we contacted, but also by our coalition partners, who were impressed by the organizing power of AMSA. You should be proud of the work you did and realize that it made a real difference.



In the world of politics, government and legislation, what we want is not always what we get – and a victory is sometimes tempered by the realization that you have only taken the first step in what is going to be a long journey. The final version of H.R. 5 that passed the House of Representatives did not have the graduate provisions we wanted to see included. As you know, bills go through many versions, changes, amendments and rewrites before their final passages. In this case, the final bill that passed applied to undergraduate loans, but not to graduate student loans.



I am as frustrated as the rest of you that a bill we worked so hard to support will make so little difference for the majority of AMSA's members. However, I encourage you all to look at the remarkable work done by so many AMSA activists and apply that energy to the next round.



S. 359, the Student Debt Relief Act of 2007, authored by Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), builds on the foundation of H.R. 5, but includes provisions that will make a real difference for graduate students. Both AMSA National President Jay Bhatt and I have been in touch with Sen. Kennedy’s office. We have taken part in meetings and discussions about exactly what this bill can do for AMSA members. We have made clear that in order to win our support, we need to see real mandates for graduate student debt relief.



Currently, the bill includes:

o a proposed increase in the Pell Grant to a maximum of $6,300 in the 2011-2012 school year through mandatory, entitlement funding;

o a Student Aid Reward Program that offers financial incentives for schools participating in the Direct Loan Program;

o an interest rate reduction;

o a Fair Payment Assurance provision that will allow borrowers to limit monthly loan repayment amounts;

o additional tax breaks in the form of an increased tuition deduction;

o the allowance of in-school loan consolidation; and

o a provision allowing for the Direct Loan Origination fee to be charged on a case-by-case basis.



In its entirety, S. 359 is a better bill for AMSA members than H.R. 5 and we will work to make sure it stays that way. I ask for your continued support of our work on student debt issues. When the time comes, we will make sure that you are well-informed regarding the final content of the Student Debt Relief Act of 2007 and that your activism will yield more tangible results.



Your AMSA leaders are also continuing to work proactively with members of Congress to develop legislation that will help relieve your debt burden. Specifically, we are currently working on a bill that will provide loan benefits for health professionals. We recognize that your commitment to medical school and to serving your patients comes with a very high cost. It is our pledge to continue to work to relieve medical student debt.



I encourage you to keep an eye on student debt legislation and also to educate yourselves and your colleagues on the issues. A wealth of information is available from the AMSA Loan Consolidation Program at www.amsaloanconsolidation.com. You are also more than welcome to contact me at any time if you have questions, concerns, or suggestions for the national leadership as we move toward relieving student debt.



Thank you for your continued support and activism.

Sincerely,



Catherine Davenport Pollock

AMSA Legislative Affairs Director, 2006-2007
 
I think that new bill is just as underwhelming. Graduate students don't get Pell grants, anyway.
 
Letter from LAD to Membership

Re: Student Debt and HR 5



Dear Friends and Colleagues,



I want to thank you all for the hard work and effort that went into AMSA's support of the National Day of Action on Student Debt. Along with our partner organizations in the Campaign for College Affordability, we were able to secure the passage of H.R. 5 – the College Student Relief Act of 2007.



The turnout of AMSA members in support of the National Day of Action was truly amazing. In one day, we logged over 12,650 actions through AMSA's Legislative Action Center (http://www.amsa.org/legislativecenter/) including over 2,000 phone calls to 144 Senators and Representatives, sent 471 Congressional offices more than 8,700 letters by email and printed out an additional 1,600+ letters to be sent by post or fax. Our contribution was recognized not only by those Congressional members we contacted, but also by our coalition partners, who were impressed by the organizing power of AMSA. You should be proud of the work you did and realize that it made a real difference.



In the world of politics, government and legislation, what we want is not always what we get – and a victory is sometimes tempered by the realization that you have only taken the first step in what is going to be a long journey. The final version of H.R. 5 that passed the House of Representatives did not have the graduate provisions we wanted to see included. As you know, bills go through many versions, changes, amendments and rewrites before their final passages. In this case, the final bill that passed applied to undergraduate loans, but not to graduate student loans.



I am as frustrated as the rest of you that a bill we worked so hard to support will make so little difference for the majority of AMSA's members. However, I encourage you all to look at the remarkable work done by so many AMSA activists and apply that energy to the next round.



S. 359, the Student Debt Relief Act of 2007, authored by Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), builds on the foundation of H.R. 5, but includes provisions that will make a real difference for graduate students. Both AMSA National President Jay Bhatt and I have been in touch with Sen. Kennedy's office. We have taken part in meetings and discussions about exactly what this bill can do for AMSA members. We have made clear that in order to win our support, we need to see real mandates for graduate student debt relief.



Currently, the bill includes:

o a proposed increase in the Pell Grant to a maximum of $6,300 in the 2011-2012 school year through mandatory, entitlement funding;

o a Student Aid Reward Program that offers financial incentives for schools participating in the Direct Loan Program;

o an interest rate reduction;

o a Fair Payment Assurance provision that will allow borrowers to limit monthly loan repayment amounts;

o additional tax breaks in the form of an increased tuition deduction;

o the allowance of in-school loan consolidation; and

o a provision allowing for the Direct Loan Origination fee to be charged on a case-by-case basis.



In its entirety, S. 359 is a better bill for AMSA members than H.R. 5 and we will work to make sure it stays that way. I ask for your continued support of our work on student debt issues. When the time comes, we will make sure that you are well-informed regarding the final content of the Student Debt Relief Act of 2007 and that your activism will yield more tangible results.



Your AMSA leaders are also continuing to work proactively with members of Congress to develop legislation that will help relieve your debt burden. Specifically, we are currently working on a bill that will provide loan benefits for health professionals. We recognize that your commitment to medical school and to serving your patients comes with a very high cost. It is our pledge to continue to work to relieve medical student debt.



I encourage you to keep an eye on student debt legislation and also to educate yourselves and your colleagues on the issues. A wealth of information is available from the AMSA Loan Consolidation Program at www.amsaloanconsolidation.com. You are also more than welcome to contact me at any time if you have questions, concerns, or suggestions for the national leadership as we move toward relieving student debt.



Thank you for your continued support and activism.

Sincerely,



Catherine Davenport Pollock

AMSA Legislative Affairs Director, 2006-2007


Hmm, this reminds me of something our incredibly bright commander in chief once said, "There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again." There is no way I am falling for this crap again.

I am wondering if AMSA is just completely inept or if they purposely misled us. I don't buy their nonsense about not knowing that the previous bill would leave out medical students. That information was all over SDN. I don't see why they would purposely mislead us, so I'm guessing they are just inept.
 
Hmm, this reminds me of something our incredibly bright commander in chief once said, "There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again." There is no way I am falling for this crap again.

I am wondering if AMSA is just completely inept or if they purposely misled us. I don't buy their nonsense about not knowing that the previous bill would leave out medical students. That information was all over SDN. I don't see why they would purposely mislead us, so I'm guessing they are just inept.

I'll be the first to say, "They didn't fool me".:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
 
Top