I really like AUC, and i am considering it my first choice but this news about the loan situation has me confused.

I wont apply for another year.

Say they do take away federal loans.... what will happen to auc?

how can i pay for it? will the school still be cali approved? will the school even exist?

thx.

it will be still cali approved---

will exists---probably---will it go through a period where it will be rough probably--

so best thing to do is email your senator and tell them about the situtation and hope they arent cut

skipper

__________________
My ID says MD....wow!

President and Dean of--
Skipper's Medical Univeristy of the Dutch West Indies--SMU-DWI
Apply Now.....Get an MD in 6 Weeks....

If you fail at AUC, SGU, or Ross why not transfer to SMU, if you fail at SMU, why not try another SMU.

they will be ok but it will make it tougher to attend. private loans have higher interest and we'l have to take them out for the whole time. don;t freak out, there are schools that only have private loans and they are doing ok...we'l have to go through something like st mats has...

__________________
OBGYN PGY II
I see light at the end of the tunnel!!!...wait a minute its just another freakin tunnel!

Is the tuition as high at the other schools?

__________________
There are no rules, just adapt and improvise.

http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/000729.php
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20051...3501-9601r.htm
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...le.asp?ID=1613

Yes and no. Goto the various school websites and do a comparison.

so whats the loan deal? are the loans cancled already? only private loans now?

someone mentioned that smu uses private loans.

so what how does it work? is the interest a big difference? do i have to start payments during residency or post residency? just wondering. thanks.

When exactly will the federal loans be nixed for us?
Is this a definite in the near future, or will this process take a while?

as far as i understand it hasnt been voted on yet. So there is still time to call or email your congressmen

__________________
Med-Peds PGY1

official member of the VMD useless crew

currently the most useful "useless member" on vmd

best quote ever - stephew "and no, you may NOT exchange porn or other sexual content in the classifieds."

some swimmer from Ct
the problem with the gene pool is that there are no lifeguards.....and we have been offering swimmies

House Passes Budget-Cutting Bill That Would Slash Student-Loan Programs and Make Refinancing More Costly

By STEPHEN BURD

Related materials
Issues in depth: Higher Education Act Reauthorization, 2005
Article tools
Printer
friendlyE-mail
articleSubscribeOrder
reprints
Headlines
House passes budget-cutting bill that would slash student-loan programs and make refinancing more costly
Civil-rights panel hears complaints of anti-Semitism on American campuses
Placebos could play a role in treating some conditions, scientists say
Study on clergy education finds that seminaries are doing a good job
32 Americans are awarded Rhodes scholarships; none are from Harvard



In the wee hours of Friday morning, the U.S. House of Representatives approved by the narrowest of margins legislation that would make it significantly more expensive for borrowers to consolidate their federal student loans.
The bill (HR 4241), which passed by a vote of 217 to 215, would cut about $50-billion from federal entitlement programs by the end of the decade, with more than a third of the reductions -- $14.3-billion -- coming from the government's student-loan programs. Fourteen Republicans joined almost all of the Democrats in opposing the bill. Two Democrats were not present for the vote.
Republican Congressional leaders have championed the budget-cutting effort, part of a process known as budget reconciliation, so they can reduce the deficit, lower taxes, and provide relief to victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The measure has been so controversial that the leadership eked out a victory only after making major concessions, unrelated to student aid, to win over moderate Republicans who were uneasy with the bill.
College lobbyists and advocates for students had waged an aggressive campaign to defeat the measure. On Friday, they lashed out at House leaders for pushing legislation that would raise the costs of student loans for borrowers. They cited a report, released this month by the Congressional Budget Office, that said the budget-cutting bill would impose $7.8-billion in new charges on students and their families. The rest of the student-loan cuts would come largely from reductions in government subsidies to private lenders and student-loan-guarantee agencies.
"Early this morning, the House voted for the largest student-loan cuts in history," said Luke Swarthout, a higher-education adviser to the State Public Interest Research Groups. "The priorities of this Congress are truly misplaced. The cuts will increase interest rates and fees on students and parents to pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans."
Key Republican lawmakers accused the student and college advocates, as well as House Democrats, of resorting to scare tactics and misleading claims in an attempt to derail the bill. They argued that the measure would help students by raising the loan limits for first- and second-year students and by reducing, over five years, the origination fees that students pay to lenders, to 1 percent.
"I'm pleased the bill reflects our long-term goals of expanding college access for low- and middle-income students," said Rep. John A. Boehner, the Ohio Republican who is chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce and the main author of the bill's student-loan provisions.
House and Senate leaders must now meet to work out differences between the two chambers' versions of the budget-reconciliation legislation That will be a tall order, as the two measures vary widely. The bill the Senate approved this month, S 1932, would slice only $36-billion from federal entitlement programs. While that measure would cut $15-billion from the federal student-loan programs, more than half of the savings would be used to create two grant programs for students from low-income families ( The Chronicle, November 4).
Refinancing Rethought
By far the most controversial provision related to students in the House's reconciliation bill centers on changes that would make it more costly for borrowers to refinance their student loans. In its report, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that those changes would raise costs on borrowers by about $5.5-billion through 2010.
Borrowers are now able to lock in low, fixed interest rates for up to 30 years. That benefit has saved borrowers billions of dollars, but it has been expensive for taxpayers because the government makes up the difference to lenders when market-based interest rates exceed those that the borrowers have locked in.
The Republican leaders of the House education committee have been looking for ways to make the loan-consolidation program less attractive to borrowers and less costly to taxpayers. To accomplish that goal, they have long wanted to shift the interest rate to one that varies from year to year based on market conditions. However, because of opposition from members of their own party, they have agreed to a proposal that would give borrowers a choice of refinancing their loans using a variable rate or a fixed rate.
However, under that plan, which was adopted in the House's reconciliation legislation, borrowers who opted for the fixed rate would be charged a rate that was one percentage point more than that charged to those who chose the variable rate. In addition, all borrowers wishing to consolidate their loans would have to pay an origination fee equal to 1 percent of their outstanding loan debt.
In a summary that they released in October outlining the proposal, the committee's leaders said the added fee would not be too costly for borrowers to pay, considering that they would, for the first time, be offered the chance to "choose the rate that will be right for them."
Democratic lawmakers and student advocates disagreed, accusing the Republicans of pushing proposals that would make it harder for borrowers to repay their loans at a time when so many students are buried in debt. If the proposed changes are enacted, Democrats on the House education committee say, borrowers who consolidate their federal student loans will have to pay up to $1,800 more than they now do under current law.
In an impassioned speech on the House floor during debate on the budget-cutting measure, Rep. George Miller of California, the top Democrat on the committee, attacked the Republican leadership for insisting on such changes, even while softening other parts of the bill to win over moderates. "The one thing that remained consistent through all that horsetrading is that they never lost their appetite to raise the cost of student loans," he said. Addressing his Republican colleagues directly, he added, "You can say all you want, but none of you apparently raised your hand and said, How about helping the students?"
None of the proposed changes in the loan-consolidation program appear in the Senate version of the legislation. That bill would continue to allow borrowers to lock in fixed interest rates for up to 30 years when they refinance their loans, without paying extra for the privilege.
Direct Attack on Direct Lending
The House legislation also takes aim at the direct-student-loan program, which was established in 1993 by President Bill Clinton and the Congress, then led by Democrats. Under direct lending, the Education Department provides loans directly to students through their colleges, bypassing the banks and student-loan-guarantee agencies that make up the rival guaranteed-loan program.
The bill would essentially reverse actions taken by the Clinton administration in its final years to keep direct lending competitive with the guaranteed-loan program. Richard W. Riley, then education secretary, discounted the origination fees that direct-loan borrowers must pay to obtain their federal loans.
He did so at a time when private lenders started flooding the market with generous discounts on federally backed student loans in an attempt to lure colleges away from direct lending by providing better deals to students.
First, in 1999, Mr. Riley announced that he would reduce the fee that direct-loan borrowers paid to 3 percent from 4 percent of a borrower's total loan balance. Direct-loan supporters cheered the move but said larger rebates were needed to keep up with the private lenders.
A year later Mr. Riley lowered the fee further, to 1.5 percent. However, borrowers would have to make 12 payments on time after they graduated to retain the discount. In other words, borrowers who failed to meet that goal would be retroactively charged an additional 1.5 percent of their loan balance.
Under the reconciliation bill, the education secretary would not be allowed to offer discounts in direct lending and would also be barred "from providing any repayment incentive before the borrower enters repayment."
Instead, the legislation would, over the next five years, gradually reduce to 1 percent the fees that borrowers in direct lending and the guaranteed-loan program are charged. Under the plan, however, borrowers in both plans would be required to pay a 3-percent fee in the 2006-7 academic year, double what students with direct loans now pay upfront as a result of Mr. Riley's actions.
The education committee's Republican leaders said they were trying "to level the playing field" between the two loan programs, by eventually lowering the fees to 1 percent.
But aid administrators at colleges in the direct-lending program said the reconciliation bill would disturb the balance to the detriment of students at their institutions. While the legislation would prevent the education secretary from discounting the fees, private lenders would continue to be allowed to pay the fees on behalf of students with guaranteed loans, they said. As a result, while direct-loan recipients would have to pay a 3-percent fee, many guaranteed-loan borrowers would not have to pay any fee at all.
Direct-loan supporters were also unhappy with a proposal in the bill that would allow lawmakers, through the annual appropriations process, to determine how much the Education Department could spend each year to administer the direct-loan program. Department officials now set that budget each year, based on the program's projected mandatory costs. By putting the program's budget under the control of appropriators, lawmakers would ensure that direct lending would have to compete each year with other Congressional priorities for spending increases.
In a summary of the bill, the education committee's leaders said the change -- which would also affect the administrative funds that the Education Department spends to run other student-aid programs -- would "inject greater accountability into the administration of federal student aid" and would allow Congress to "have greater opportunities to ensure programs are running efficiently and effectively."
But direct-loan supporters said the proposal would give the program's enemies in Congress the chance to starve its budget. They prefer the Senate bill, which would continue to permit the secretary of education to reduce the fees that students must pay to obtain loans and would continue to allow Education Department officials to set the direct-loan program's administrative budget.
Implication for Reauthorization
The outcome of negotiations between House and Senate lawmakers over budget reconciliation could also be pivotal in determining whether Congress will be able to complete work on legislation to reauthorize, or extend, the Higher Education Act.
The budget-cutting measure that the Senate passed this month includes reauthorization legislation (S 1614) that the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions approved in September ( The Chronicle, October 19). Representative Boehner declined to follow the lead of his Senate counterparts and chose to keep House reauthorization bill ( HR 609) on a separate track.
Congressional observers say that because of the Senate's action, however, lawmakers could still negotiate a final reauthorization bill next month. The decision on whether or not to do so will rest largely on the shoulders of Mr. Boehner and his Republican colleagues on the education committee. The Higher Education Act expires at the end of December, but Congress can once again seek a short-term extension ( The Chronicle, September 30).
College lobbyists would much prefer Congress to consider the higher-education legislation on its own because they fear that it will be much harder for colleges to influence the reauthorizing legislation if it is merely a part of a vast bill on other issues. "The House and Senate already have a huge job ahead of them to work out the differences they have on student loans and other student-aid issues that are part of budget reconciliation," said Sarah A. Flanagan, vice president for government relations at the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities. "They should wait to address other reauthorization issues, which are so vital to colleges, until next year when they have more time to think them through."

__________________
Moderator - State Licensing Forum

Still skeptical after all these years.
This is it. There are no hidden meanings.WYSIWYG

http://www.internetmedicalschool.homestead.com

http://www.chiropractormds.homestead.com/index.html