By Srikanth Sivashankaran, Research Associate

Vassar College's plan to replace loans with grants for students with family incomes below $60,000 was the subject of several newspaper articles last week.

Meanwhile, the University of Arizona is implementing its "Arizona Assurance," first announced in early November, to replace loans with grants for students with family incomes below $42,400. Unlike Vassar's, the Arizona initiative has not attracted much attention from major media in the last four months.

This disparity in coverage is puzzling, considering the potential impacts of the two programs: federal data show that 428 applicants for financial aid at Vassar met the income criterion of the college’s new policy in 2006-07. At Arizona, that number was 4,281 – a tenfold difference that puts the absence of public institutions from the mainstream discussion of no- and low-loan announcements into glaring perspective.

Financial aid pledges to limit the use of loans in financial aid at elite private colleges are significant. They represent real savings for some families, and a mounting consensus that an unmanageable debt burden is unacceptable. But policymakers and the media should not forget that students with family incomes below $60,000 are much more likely to attend public colleges and universities than private ones – at a rate of six to one in 2003-04 (the last year for which reliable data of this sort is available).

The University of Arizona and other public institutions that have taken steps to reduce student debt burdens for low-income students deserve due credit. See here for a full list of institutions – public and private – that have instituted financial aid pledges.

Posted by Edie Irons at 4:27 PM | Permalink

Lenders have made it clear that students with poor credit are less likely to be able to find a private student loan. Fortunately, students have good federal options. But for students or parents with good credit who decide they want a private student loan, have rates increased? Some analysts guess yes, but it is a difficult question to analyze. Unless lenders release their pricing policies (which they don't), the only way to find out if rates have, indeed, gone up is to get old and new quotes for the same person with the same qualifications for the same type of loan.

We now have two such tests, me and a colleague. My colleague got quotes from seven lenders two years ago. This month she applied again to those same lenders. The results: four offered her a lower rate than two years ago, one offered a higher rate, one rejected her, and one had suspended operations. Combined with my results, this very small sample suggests that rates are unchanged or even down for people with good credit.

There’s another way to look at this, though: What was the lowest rate my colleague found two years ago compared to the lowest offer now? By that analysis, she would pay a rate one-tenth of a percentage point higher now than two years ago. (That’s because the one rate that had gone up was the one that was the lowest before). An increase, but a very small one.

Here are the details of my colleague’s loan offers. Two years ago (April 2006) My Rich Uncle offered her a rate of LIBOR plus 2.65 percentage points; now (March 2008) the rate is LIBOR plus 4.0, an increase of 1.35. In contrast, Access Group offered her the lowest rate this time around (LIBOR plus 2.75), a full 1.2 percentage points lower than that company’s offer two years ago. The rates from Bank of America, Sallie Mae, and Citibank had all dropped by one to two tenths of a percent. Education Finance Partners mysteriously denied her a loan this time, suggesting a co-borrower, while Loan to Learn has shut down its operations.

Posted by bob shireman at 6:30 PM | Permalink

Nearly a year ago, long before the current credit crunch, I spent some time reviewing the various methods of comparing prices on private student loans. I found that the "as low as" rates advertised on comparison sites don't tell the shopper very much. I also found that it is very difficult to get an actual rate quote for comparison purposes, because you have to complete entire applications, turn over personal details, and authorize credit checks. And those multiple credit checks from potential lenders can have the effect of hurting your credit score, because they create the impression that you are desperate to get a loan.

Nonetheless, I persevered and got some actual interest rate and fee quotes, and the promissory notes to go along with them.

With all the doomsday stories about the credit crunch, we decided it was time to see if we could confirm that even someone with good credit (still me, despite tempting fate with all those loan applications) would have a tougher time getting a loan or would face higher charges. So last week I went back to two of the lenders who had offered me loans last year, National
City and Suntrust. I plugged in the same loan amount, degree program, and other details.

Their responses seemed to take a day or two longer than last year, which may be a result of some of the layoffs in the industry. But both of them got back to me with rate quotes and promissory notes. The rate at National City was higher than last year, by the equivalent of about half of one percentage point (0.25 higher interest rate, 3.5% higher fee, 20-year term). But the rate at Suntrust was exactly the same as last year: the one-month LIBOR index plus 2.5 percentage points, with no fee.

Now I'll see if I've ruined my credit rating by applying for these loans. Then I'll be able to test whether someone with bad credit can get a private loan. (Fortunately, even if my credit has been destroyed, I can always get Federal Stafford Loans because they require no credit check).

Posted by bob shireman at 1:46 PM | Permalink