Ninety percent of the students take the 'preferred lender.' Why? Because that's the nature of the relationship. You trust the school. The school is in a position of authority.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
You can be a lender who wants to compete and have a better product, but you just can't get to the students. The schools are controlling the access to the students.
It is the quality of lending over the quantity of lending.
Just because someone will lend money to you doesn't mean you should borrow it.
Banks were once places to hold money and were very careful in lending to finance families as they built a future - bought homes, bought cars, took out student loans.
If lenders are forced to scale back student lending because private student loans are subject to bankruptcy discharge, many students will be denied access to higher education.
One of the risks for anybody in the lending business is that being conservative can harm your competitiveness.
We have an obligation and a responsibility to be investing in our students and our schools. We must make sure that people who have the grades, the desire and the will, but not the money, can still get the best education possible.
Money buys the most experienced teachers, less-crowded classrooms, high-quality teaching materials, and after-school programs.
Demands for equal financing of sewers, streets, and garbage collection would make more sense than proposals for equal financing of the schools, since some plausible connection may be inferred between the amount of money expended, e.g., for roads, and the quality of service resulting to the taxpayer.
When people feel like, 'Lenders weren't fair with me; I don't have any responsibility to be fair with them.' If we go far enough down that line, much of the fabric of our economy starts to unravel.
No opposing quotes found.