06.29.07
Legal immigrant veterans suing over denial of tuition waiver
Regardless of what your opinion is on US foreign policy, this is ridiculous! These veterans risked their lives for their adopted country and they’re being denied veteran’s benefits because they were legal residents but not yet U.S. citizens when they entered the US Armed Forces.
Immigrant veterans suing over denial of tuition waiver
DALLAS — Two Texas veterans are challenging a state policy barring them from receiving college tuition waivers because they were legal residents but not yet U.S. citizens when they entered the service.
Attorneys with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund announced the federal lawsuit Thursday in San Antonio. The Latino advocacy group is suing on behalf of Raul Dominguez and Naser Alzer, two honorably discharged veterans who served in the Gulf War and have since become U.S. citizens, and the American GI Forum of Texas, a veterans advocacy group.
The case focuses on the veterans’ exclusion from the Texas Hazlewood Act, a benefit that exempts those who were legal residents of Texas at the time they entered the military from paying tuition and some fees at state colleges. Nearly 9,000 veterans benefitted from the Hazlewood exemption in fiscal year 2005, according to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board.
“Our clients simply want to enjoy the same benefits received by native-born Texas veterans,” said Carlos Becerra, a MALDEF staff attorney. “After having honorably served their country in the military, it is only fair that veterans who entered the military as legal permanent residents be afforded the same educational opportunities as those veterans who entered the military as citizens.”
Both plaintiffs are college graduates who have exhausted the money from their GI bill. Dominguez, of Amarillo, wants to obtain a master’s degree in education from West Texas A&M in Canyon. Alzer, of Austin, wants to seek a Ph.D. in finance from the University of Texas at San Antonio.
Typically, someone in their position could depend on the Hazlewood Act to continue their education. But the application for the Hazlewood waiver asks whether the applicant was a U.S. citizen upon entering the military. If the answer is no, the application instructs the person not to continue the process, Becerra said.
“This deters many veterans who otherwise would have applied for the Hazlewood exemption,” he said.
Before 2006, Texas public colleges and universities gave the Hazlewood benefit to all qualifying veterans regardless of whether they were U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents when they entered the military.
The change came from an August 2005 attorney general’s opinion saying the Hazlewood Act phrase “citizen of Texas” should be interpreted as a person who lives in the state and is a U.S. citizen.
The state Attorney General’s Office said it had not been served with the lawsuit and had no comment. The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board also said it had not seen the lawsuit and couldn’t comment.
Sen. Leticia Van de Putte, a San Antonio Democrat, authored legislation to remove the U.S. citizenship requirement but it was not approved during the last session The change would have brought Texas back in line with the federal goverment, which doesn’t make distinctions between citizens and legal residents on educational benefits for veterans, Van de Putte said.
“I would like the people who make these policies to really… see who is sacrificing over there in Afghanistan and Iraq,” she said.
Only people with legal status can join the U.S. military. About 40,000 members of the U.S. military are eligible to apply for naturalization. Some 6,000 to 7,500 service members have become U.S. citizens in the last two years, with many being naturalized while serving on active duty outside the country, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
06.27.07
eSignature – what’s the difference between that and a real signature?
Here’s a question I hear a lot: “What is an eSignature?“
An eSignature (sometimes written ESignature, e-signature, or even eSig) is simply an”electronic signature”. It’s an electronic way of verifying that you are who you say you are, and that you agree to the transaction you are trying to complete.
Here at the Student Loan Network, we offer eSignature for consolidation, as do most lenders.
So what does this mean for you, the borrower?
It means that if you qualify for eSignature, you can electronically sign your application right away and have it go into processing immediately, instead of having the application mailed to you, you sign it, you mail it back to the company, etc…
How does it work?
When you lender determines that you are eligible, you’ll get an email with a link to click on and typically some sort of login information or passphrase. You click on the link and follow the directions on screen.
You’ll be asked to double-check your information such as name, address, references, etc. Often, you’ll also be asked to verify credit-based occurrences in your past, such as the name of the bank where you took out your last car loan, or the monthly payment on your mortgage. This is to make sure that no one else is trying to use your personal information fraudulently.
Lastly, you’ll be asked to read the terms and conditions of the loan and agree to them. Often, you’ll see check boxes saying you agree to the various terms. You’ll likely have to type in a sentence agreeing to it all or type you name in to finalize the process.
That’s it?
Yup, that’s it. It’s not rocket science, just a way of getting your loan into processing faster and at your convenience.
06.26.07
More student-loan fraud from “borrower”
As a follow-on to the recent article on the woman from Guam, here’s one on a woman from New Orleans trying to illegally get student loans she wasn’t qualified for. Read the whole article at NOLA.org.
Coushatta woman, others sentenced in college loan fraud scheme
| 6/26/2007, 9:36 a.m. CDT The Associated Press |
COUSHATTA, La. (AP) — A Coushatta woman who got student aid and loans for which she wasn’t qualified and filled in forms so others could, too, must spend nearly 3 years in prison and repay $30,500, and two relatives will serve lesser sentences.
U.S. District Judge Dee D. Drell sentenced Anita Morris, 35, to 2 years and 9 months in prison Monday, U.S. Attorney Donald W. Washington said.
Kevin Morris, 30, of Robeline was sentenced to 15 months and ordered to repay $6,650, and Ruth S. Frazier, 56, of Marthaville, must repay nearly $5,800 and spend five years on probation, said Washington.
He described them as a “family of thieves who sought to steal monies provided by the American taxpayer to help the truly needy achieve a college education.”
A third co-defendant, Dorris Morris, will be sentenced July 12.
Anita Morris pleaded guilty in March to one count each of conspiracy to commit student aid fraud and making false statements on the bank loan application to get a student loan for her and others. Testimony showed she got people who were not qualified for the university or had no plans to go to apply for student aid.
The U.S. Department of Education, Office of Inspector General and Northwestern State University Police Department investigated the case, which was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert W. Gillespie Jr.
06.25.07
Workstudy-Student illegally gives herself a loan
It’s amazing what some people will do for tuition money! This article from Guam’s Pacific Daily News will make you roll your eyes.
Audit reveals UOG loan scheme
By Lacee A.C. Martinez
Pacific Daily News
A University of Guam student-employee allegedly used her position at the school’s Financial Aid Office to obtain a federal grant and loan for college students, according to a report released yesterday by the Office of the Public Auditor.
Findings in the university’s audit report showed the woman gave herself a Pell Grant award without meeting the requirements. She was able to add herself to the Business Office award listing and then deleted herself off the Pell Grant receipt record after a check was issued, the audit stated.
The student, who was not named in the report, also allegedly falsified data to apply and receive a Stafford Federal Student Loan.
“As part of the application process, a certification form required by the financial institution appeared to be forged as the person listed as the UOG financial aid office counselor was fictitious. The employee obtained a loan, which she was eligible for, however it was higher than what she was entitled to as an undergraduate student,” the report stated.University spokeswoman Cathleen Moore-Linn said another Financial Aid Office employee discovered the incident several months ago.
An internal investigation was launched and the matter has been forwarded to Attorney General’s Office and the FBI, she said.
Moore-Linn could not release the name of the employee, who was terminated after the investigation. She added that no one else was found to be involved in the alleged scheme.
“We went through our own internal controls to strengthen them to ensure something like can’t happen again,” Moore-Linn said.
Despite the alleged loan scheme, the audit noted that the university was successful in attracting federal grants last fiscal year. There were 82 different federal grants with $24.9 million in expenditures compared to the previous fiscal year, when there were 75 grants with $23.3 million in expenditures.
06.22.07
Avoid College Selection Hysteria
I’d never heard a name put to this before, but I do remember vividly what he’s talking about! Parents and Teens should read this very interesting article from the Capitol Online – HometownAnnapolis.com website.
Teens, parents should avoid College Selection Hysteria
by Dr. Scott Smith
There is probably no concern that is more potent or palpable for many teenagers and their families than the experience of College Selection Hysteria, or CSH. While it is not yet an “official” psychological diagnosis, CSH is an often-observed phenomenon that starts to grip many adolescents and their parents around the beginning of their junior year of high school. This amplified form of anxiety is based in concern or worry about finding, being admitted to and paying for the “right” college.
Symptoms of CSH can include mental confusion, sleepless nights, worry, difficulty concentrating and irritability. If left untreated, it can lead to conflict between parents and children, feelings of helplessness, hopelessness and despair. Fortunately, CSH is treatable and even preventable.Like so many other mass phenomena, CSH is partly driven by the media attention that has been paid to the issue of college selection in recent years. It is further amplified by the rising number of college applications that are occurring nationwide. This surge in applications and the resulting increase in competition for the “top” schools are expected to remain high until 2014. As a result, CSH may be at an all-time high due to increasing fear that a college-bound student won’t be able to get into the “right” school and that this will place him at a significant life disadvantage.
Stoking the fires of this hysteria are the numerous publications which purport to be experts at rating or gauging the country’s “best” colleges. This American penchant for rating and categorizing things only serves to amplify another predisposition – competitiveness – which contributes greatly to the development of CSH. In truth, there are many great schools out there to attend and there is likely to be a good school to match just about anyone.
To help with CSH, my alma mater, Washington and Lee University, runs a program for alumni titled, “Finding Your Way Through the College Admissions Maze.” One of the benefits of thiskind of program is that it helps students and parents realize they are not alone in their bewilderment and that many others feel much the same way they do: confused about the college admissions process.
The program, which features notable college admissions specialists, points out that there is a great deal of misinformation and misunderstanding about the admissions process. Trying to glean what I could from the wealth of information provided, it seems there are certain prevalent myths about getting into college which are in need of debunking. Some of the most harmful myths that exist with regard to the college selection process include the following:
If it’s not ranked highly by U.S. News and World Report, it isn’t a good college. This belief is simply wrong, wrong and wrong. It is important to remember your grandfather’s old adage not to believe everything you read. Unbeknownst to most people, the college rankings done by a variety of publications, including U.S. News and World Report, are blatantly speculative, unscientific and inherently flawed.
Often using years-old data and random bits and pieces of information, a significant percentage of these ratings are simply based upon how well known a college has become. There is little or no actual information or insight into the college itself or how well it may fit an individual student.
Searching for a college based upon this type of information is like choosing shoes because of their glitzy brand-name advertising, regardless of how they feel on your feet.
If I don’t attend a “name” college, I will be at a disadvantage my whole life. Again, this myth is wrong on many fronts. Research has consistently shown that the most important educational factor is whether or not you attend college and how you do when you are there – not the name of the college that you attend.
There are thousands of colleges and universities all over the United States, yet people tend to look at the same ones over and over again because their names – or more likely, their football teams – are familiar. This is not unlike the sad truth that many people choose elected officials on name recognition rather than their philosophies or proposed policies. It is important to know that there is a multitude of great colleges out there that fit almost any person, budget or educational goal.
I should get a scholarship, or at least get a discount on my college tuition. This is another myth that is fed by the media, which seems to imply that discounting is routine. Although prices vary widely and depend on a variety of factors, most people actually have to pay for college, and the availability of scholarships or even financial aid is much lower than people seem to realize. Colleges run like businesses, and if their customers aren’t paying for the product, they are unlikely to stay in business very long.
While there are some funds available, particularly for disadvantaged individuals, many people who fill out the required Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) find that they are not eligible for much of anything. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try to reduce costs, but be realistic about how the system really works.
If my SAT scores or GPA aren’t high, I shouldn’t bother applying. If you like the school and you feel that it fits you well, go ahead and apply. Most of the “good” schools use a “whole person” concept and look for students who are motivated to attend college and who are active in their worlds.
Students who sit around and resume-build or stoke their GPAs and SATs without being truly involved or committed to meaningful activities are not as desirable as one might think. Colleges look for people with a unified theme of interests, activities and service in addition to working hard to get good grades.
For students, you might compare the process of selecting the right college to that of choosing which of many different parties you want to attend. No two parties are alike, and while they may have certain similarities, they are ultimately defined by their differences. It is impossible to compare them directly because they all have their own unique feel. Your party choice would most likely depend on who is there, what activities are offered, what food will be served and what music will be played. If you go to a party, simply because you think all the “in” people will be there, you are likely to end up totally bored and miserable.
To prevent the development of CSH, it is important to realize that there are many great schools out there and that the real challenge in college selection is finding the school that best matches you. This approach makes looking for a school an exciting adventure rather than a stressful competition. Instead of focusing on getting into a “top” school, try researching and visiting a variety of colleges to find out which ones you connect with.
After coming up with a general list, consider applying to two “reach” schools (difficult to get into), two “comfort” schools (schools that you have a good shot at) and two “safety” schools (schools you would expect to get into). After all the results are in, simply select your favorite available college and go have fun! And remember that it is more important to attend a school that matches you and facilitates your intellectual and personal growth than going to a school that looks good on paper.
Dr. Scott E. Smith is a licensed clinical psychologist with Spectrum Behavioral Health in Annapolis and Arnold. For services or ideas regarding this column, call 410-757-2077 or write to 1509 Ritchie Highway, Suite F, Arnold, MD 21012.
06.21.07
HEA Reauthorization act passed by Senate Committee
The Senate HELP Committee yesterday passed the HEA reauthorization with very little debate needed. NASFAA reports on this:
Senate HELP Committee Passes HEA Reauthorization and Reconciliation Bills With Little Dissent
In just under an hour of deliberations, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee approved both the Higher Education Act Reauthorization and the Budget Reconciliation bills by wide margins. The two bills passed with the addition of only three amendments, which would make substantial changes to the federal student aid programs by raising $22 billion over five years for need-based aid and at the same time cutting approximately $1 billion in spending. These increases and savings would come at the expense of student loan providers in the form of subsidy cuts.
The HEA reauthorization bill (S. 1642), Higher Education Amendments of 2007, passed on a 20-0 vote and faced little opposition.
The budget reconciliation bill, Higher Education Access Act of 2007, received some debate, but still passed by an overwhelming 17-3 majority. Three Republican Senators – Judd Gregg (R-NH), Richard Burr (R-NC), and Wayne Allard (R-CO) – cast the dissenting votes.
Committee Chairman Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) voiced his approval of the passage of the two bills in a press release yesterday.
“This is a historic day for America’s students. The HELP Committee has passed two bills that will increase access to college and make sure scarce federal dollars are going where they are most needed – to students,” said Kennedy.
In his opening remarks at the committee meeting, Kennedy said that Congress had lost sight of the principle that “no qualified student should be denied the opportunity to attend college because of the cost.”
As a result, Kennedy stated than 400,000 qualified students do not attend a four-year college due to the costs and that those who do attend college are becoming increasingly burdened by student loan debt.
“Today, the average student leaves college with more than $19,000 in student loan debt. This mountain of debt is distorting countless Americans’ basic life choices,” said Kennedy.
According to Kennedy, the two bills would “restore the fundamental principle that guided the Higher Education Act at its inception – that no student should have to mortgage his or her future in order to pay for higher education today.”
While debate was limited, some Senators criticized the Democrats for using the budget reconciliation process to push through this sweeping legislation. Senator Gregg asked that the two bills be combined into just one bill, but other members of the Committee were resistant to the idea because it could allow Republicans to invoke the Byrd rule. The Byrd rule prohibits the Senate from considering “extraneous matter” as part of a reconciliation bill and could allow Republicans an opportunity to derail portions of the proposed legislation.
But Gregg also voiced his support of the student loan auction process as outlined in the Reconciliation bill, saying that he would like to see it expanded to the other loan programs. Currently it would be limited to PLUS loans.
Only three amendments were added to the proposed legislation. Two amendments that were proposed and added by Burr create two matching grant programs to promote financial literacy and encourage disadvantaged high school students to attend college. No details have yet been released on the two matching grant programs.
Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) also added an amendment that would ensure that no TRIO program would be required to participate in a program evaluation that requires recruiting students to serve as a control group. According to the amendment, the U.S. Department of Education would not be able to reward or penalize any institution for choosing to participate, or refusing to participate, in a study that requires such a control group.
Many are speculating that the College Cost Reduction Act, which was passed by the House Education Committee last week, may make it to the House floor for a vote as early as next week. The two Senate bills passed yesterday aren’t expected to reach a full Senate vote until sometime in July.
06.19.07
Foster Youths off to College
In a time when all the news seems negative, I thought I’d show you something that would show there is still hope left in this world. Please read this article from the Honolulu Advertiser.
97 foster youths ready to move on
By Kim Fassler – Advertiser Staff Writer
Ninety-seven foster youths who graduated from local private and public high schools across the state this spring were commended at a luncheon at Washington Place yesterday for their achievements.
The luncheon, hosted by the Department of Human Services, was attended by 77 of the honorees, many of whom arrived from Neighbor Islands.
“This event is to acknowledge and congratulate the grads who have made it this far,” said Wendy Peltier, 21, president of the Hawai’i Foster Youth Coalition, a youth-led organization that provides support and opportunities to youth in foster homes.
Peltier, herself a graduate of the state’s foster-care system and now a student at Honolulu Community College, acted as a foster parent for her brother, sister and her sister’s daughter. She held her niece on her lap during part of the luncheon today.
Chantell Tautua, 18, a graduate of Pahoa High School on the Big Island, was one of the graduates. Tautua, who plans to study business management at the University of Hawai’i-Hilo this fall and to obtain a law degree, recently won five scholarships upon her recent graduation.
Throughout high school, Tautua lived in four foster homes and “had to work for everything.” She juggled high school classes with a nearly full-time job at McDonald’s in Keau.
Her goal of becoming a lawyer coincides with her desire to “help not only foster youth, but troubled youth in general.”
“Each and every one of you who graduated today are role models,” said Lt. Gov. James “Duke” Aiona during the invocation. “Each and every one of you are leaders.”
On any given day in Hawai’i, there are 2,100 foster children who do not live with their biological parents, Human Services Director Lillian Koller said at the luncheon.
“That’s still a horrifyingly large number, but it’s down a lot,” she said.
Koller spoke about the many unique challenges faced by youth in the foster-care system and encouraged the attendees to “be role models, stay connected and encourage other children to make the same decisions you’ve made.”
06.18.07
Interpreting the new Sunshine Act
Despite it’s very pretty name, the new Sunshine Act is very vague in places – and that’s makeing colleges and universities worry! Read the article from Inside Highre Ed here.
Interpreting the Sunshine Act
As the much-anticipated Student Loan Sunshine Act works its way through Congress this summer, language in the bill has come under close scrutiny.
An alert sent recently by the Association of Governing Boards of Colleges and Universities to its members illustrates the concerns at least one group has about what it deems as overly broad and vague provisions. The letter’s title, “Student Loan Reform Bill Would Prohibit Trustees and Presidents from Serving on Bank Boards,” speaks largely for itself.
Still, others who have read the bill (H.R. 890), which has passed the U.S. House of Representatives and is awaiting a Senate companion, say the association is misinterpreting the intentions of the legislation.
The Sunshine Act, first discussed last year but given added momentum by the cascading student loan investigations emerging out of Congress and the New York attorney general’s office, would create stricter codes of conduct for university employees and place certain prohibitions on gifts from lenders to student-loan officers — both aims that the trustees’ group’s memo praises as preventing further abuses by lenders and employees of institutions.
But the AGB memo says some parts of the bill would be to the detriment of its members, “creating untenable conditions for board members and college presidents as well as confusion on charitable giving by banks to colleges and universities.”
The letter says of specific concern:
- Trustees would be forced to choose whether to remain a member of the college or university governing board or the board of a financial institution.
- College and university presidents would be prohibited from serving on the board of a financial institution.
- Colleges and universities would face confusing and conflicting choices as to whether they could accept philanthropic gifts from such institutions.
A spokesman for AGB said the group had no comment on the internal memo, which says college officials should monitor the bill because it is likely that language in the legislation will be incorporated into pending legislation to renew the Higher Education Act.
Critics of the memo say the association is reading too much into the student loan legislation, and that the prohibitions on serving on bank boards, in particular, would apply only to financial aid officials or those with direct responsibilities with respect to educational loans.
While not directly addressing the the trustees’ group’s letter, Rachel Racusen, a spokeswoman for Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee who drafted the bill, said in an e-mail that the “intent of the act is clear — any and all financial arrangements between schools and lenders should be made in the interest of providing students with full and fair information about the types of loans available to them.
“The logic here is quite simple — any school official involved with administering financial aid should not have outside dealings with lenders that could compromise the financial advice they are giving to students and parents,” Racusen added.
Under the bill, colleges could accept philanthropic gifts from financial institutions as long as there is no quid pro quo in exchange for loan volume or placement on a college’s preferred lender list, Racusen said. To ensure transparency, colleges would have to report all philanthropic gifts under a new model format that is being developed by the U.S. secretary of education.
James Shekleton, general counsel of the South Dakota Board of Regents, said he thinks the governing board group is giving bad advice to its members. “I’m surprised by the conclusions,” he said. “It seemed that the actual text of the legislation didn’t go as far as AGB had suggested.”
In particular, Shekleton said the group is misreading the provision regarding who should be allowed to serve on bank boards. He points to this clause: an “officer, employee, or agent who is employed in the financial aid office of a covered institution, or who otherwise has responsibilities with respect to educational loans or other financial aid, shall not serve on or otherwise participate with advisory councils or lenders or affiliates of lenders.”
The question, then, says Shekleton, is whether trustees are considered to have significant administration of financial aid programs. He says that’s a stretch, and that board members have a general policy making and oversight role, which would exclude them from the prohibitions.
“Had the House intended to establish a blanket prohibition on the service by institutional officers on lender governing boards, the English language, even in its legislative iterations, would accommodate more direct expressions of that intent,” he said in an e-mail he is circulating. “Given the painstaking specificity of the enumerated bans, it would be surprising if a much broader unstated ban was equally intended.”
Michael B. Goldstein, a higher education lawyer with the firm Dow Lohnes, said that it’s conceivable that “one could argue that a president has ultimate responsibility” with regards to lender deals with colleges, but that he can’t see the bill applying to trustees.
Goldstein said AGB’s concerns about colleges accepting gifts is unfounded, because the bill, as he reads it, refers to gifts to individuals, not institutions.
“Certainly the bill is written with broad language, but [the trustees’ group] is spinning it in the worst possible way for them.”
06.15.07
House passes College Cost Reduction Act of 2007
A very interesting article on nchelp.org:
House Passes College Cost Reduction Act of 2007
As reported in yesterday’s briefing, the House Education and Labor Committee passed legislation by a 30 to 16 vote with all Democrats supporting the bill and the support of three Republicans.
The bill would cut roughly $19 billion from lender and guarantor fees and redirect these funds to student aid. Republican committee members stated that the Democrat’s proposal was “extracting too much blood” from lenders. Congressman Keller (R-FL) stated, “We’ve gone clean to the muscle and all the way to the bone,” in reference to the reduction of subsidies.
Ranking Member McKeon (R-CA) offered substitute legislation that would have cut lender and guarantor payments by roughly $13.8 billion and redirected those funds to Pell grants. Additionally, his legislation would have corrected current law to equalize Direct Loan and FFEL PLUS loan rates at 7.9 percent, invested $12 billion in Pell grants to increase the maximum grant by $350 in 2008, provided approximately $2 billion for deficit reduction and created no new entitlement spending. His proposal was not approved by the committee.
Press releases from Congressmen Miller and McKeon and further coverage by Congress Daily, CQ, Reuters, NASFAA, Inside Higher Ed, and the New York Times are included in the expanded edition of the Briefing.
06.12.07
Tuition Increase hindering Tax Breaks?
Here’s an interesting article from the Chronicle of Higher Education:
Efforts to Expand Higher-Education Tax Benefits Are Hindered by Tuition Increases, Senator Says
By PAUL FAIN – Washington
College leaders got good news on Monday from U.S. Sen. Max S. Baucus, who told attendees of the Chronicle Presidents Forum here that he would back legislation to increase tax breaks for higher education as well as federal student aid in coming weeks.
But the senator, a Montana Democrat who is chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said such efforts were hindered by skepticism among lawmakers that colleges are adequately trying to control costs.
A paid subscription may be required to read the rest of the article.