Dwyer, Lenna P

English

University of Louisville

Journal of Student Financial AidVolume 43 | Issue 2 Article 59-30-2013Book Review: The Lowering of Higher Educationin America: Why Student Loans Should Be Basedon Credit WorthinessLenna P. DwyerRutgers, The State University of New Jersey, lenna.p.dwyer@gmail.comFollow this and additional works at: https://ir.library.louisville.edu/jsfaPart of the Higher Education CommonsThis Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository. It has been acceptedfor inclusion in Journal of Student Financial Aid by an authorized administrator of ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository. Formore information, please contact thinkir@louisville.edu.Recommended CitationDwyer, Lenna P. (2013) "Book Review: The Lowering of Higher Education in America: Why Student Loans Should Be Based onCredit Worthiness," Journal of Student Financial Aid: Vol. 43 : Iss. 2 , Article 5.Available at: https://ir.library.louisville.edu/jsfa/vol43/iss2/5© 2013 National Association of  Student Financial Aid Administrators 105Book Review: The Lowering of Higher Education in America:Why Student Loans Should Be Based on Credit WorthinessBy Lenna DwyerLenna Dwyergraduated in 2013from StonehillCollege in Easton,MA with a BA inWorld History. Shewas the FederalRelations and PolicyIntern at NASFAAduring the fall of2012. She is theResearch Assistantand Social MediaOutreach contactfor the financial aidoffice at Rutgers,The State ofNew Jersey.A s federal legislators aim to expand access for all students – thosewho are academically prepared and those who are under-preparedalike – Jackson Toby offers a simple policy solution: only awardfederal aid to students who will succeed and be able to pay back their loans.Jackson Toby, in The Lowering of  Higher Education in America: Why StudentLoans Should Be Based on Credit Worthiness, urges for the reassessment of  thecurrent federal student loan policies.The Lowering of  Higher Education caters towards an audience who under-stands the current financial aid policy environment and who desire to learnabout current policy debates. Toby outlines in six chapters the unintendedconsequences of  current loan policy, culminating in a final chapter thatoffers policy solutions to avoid these unintended consequences. The book“[makes] the case that the educational and economic costs of  the publicpolicy of  making college education a universal entitlement outweigh thebenefits…” (Toby, xvi). The concluding chapter of  the book outlinesToby’s basic argument, while the initial chapters provide more in-depthanalysis about the definition of  credit-worthiness when used for grantingfederal student loans.The development of  Toby’s argument comes slowly, as he carefullyexamines each facet of  the current federal student loan policy and its flaws.Toby claims that colleges are undermining the K-12 system by givingstudents a false sense of  postsecondary financial aid security and notincentivizing students to do well academically. His claim is built upon theidea that universal access to federal financial aid has lowered collegestandards in American universities. While Toby argues that higher educa-tion is undermining the efficiency of  the K-12 systems, the basis of  hislater arguments focuses on the failure of  the K-12 system to preparestudents for higher education. Although shortfalls in each sector have beenresearched, Toby does not point to outside studies that support his claims.While not explicitly blaming the K-12 sector for the failures of  studentsuccess, Toby argues that because of  the K-12 failures in preparing stu-dents, the use of  federal financial aid for college level remediation hasbecome inevitable. Although Toby is adamant in his point, his blame foruse of federal funds for remediation cannot be placed solely on the K-12system; yet, The Lowering of  Higher Education in America argues that federalfinancial aid should be used for college-ready students who will obtainsuccess, and not to help underprepared students attain college readiness.The Lowering of  Higher Education is a summary of  current public policyand research studies defining “student success,” as well as literature onstudent learning outcomes. Toby argues that there should be a moreeffective federally mandated K-12 education curriculum to ensure fewer106 Journal of  Student Financial Aid Volume 43 • Number 2 • 2013students face higher education underprepared. Although not stated, therevamp of  K-12 education would theoretically lower the number ofunderprepared students entering higher education, thus reducing the needto adopt Toby’s proposed aid reforms. Toby defends the idea of  rationinghigher education to students who are academically and financially capableof  successfully completing a degree program. Toby further argues thatstudents should not attend any level of  higher education if  they are notcapable of  repaying federal loans they need to complete the degree.Creating a distinction between the intentions of  access and the conse-quences of  remediation, the author puts forth the argument that federalstudent loans should be an incentive. Incentivizing student loans, accordingto Toby, would require students to prepare themselves academically in highschool to earn the ability to take out a student loan. Toby argues thathigher education in America is not focused on teaching students; rather, itsimply extends the years of  fun. Although academic achievement may notbe the focus of  all students, Toby does not give statistics regarding stu-dents he considers to be having fun versus working hard. Awarding federalloans based upon academic performance in high school and college wouldpush students to prepare and focus on academics rather than fun. Thisacademic requirement to gain access to federal student loans wouldtheoretically remove the grade inflation and teaching to the lowest achiev-ing students that Toby argues frequently occurs, as fewer underpreparedstudents would influx the higher education system. Although gradeinflation would be reduced with such restrictions on higher educationaccess, it would not be eliminated. He argues the removal of  lower-income,under-prepared students from higher education, would allow college-readystudents to be more challenged academically.The idea that academic preparedness should determine potential federalstudent loan eligibility is the key theme of  the entire book, which theauthor argues should shape financial aid policy. Toby tends to over-simplifythe complexity of  financial aid policy. Students who attend under-resourced urban schools, for example, may be penalized in Toby’s system ifthey are not perceived to “perform” as well as students from well-resourced schools. Toby did not identify which population students wouldbe compared against for being “college-ready.” Similarly, he did not clarifywhether students would be selected as college-ready based on their highschool class rank, or by some standardized test. This gap in the argumentinfluences greatly whether his solution even has a reliable measure ofacademic readiness, or whether it would further existing educationalinequalities.The author seems unaware of, or purposefully omits, the dangers ofshifting to an academically based federal loan program. The previousdecades of  higher education legislation has focused upon access for under-privileged students, but Toby’s program would negatively affect studentaccess and disadvantaged youth, undermining previous policy goals. Tobyacknowledges that removing loans for academically lower performingstudents could undo the push for increased access to higher education. Hechallenges this idea, stating that loans should be given to those who canrepay them. He argues that academically prepared students should be© 2013 National Association of  Student Financial Aid Administrators 107rewarded with federal loans to incentivize a focus on academic achieve-ment, while students who are academically underprepared should not berewarded with federal loans. However, this student loan policy would bedetrimental to underprepared students who want to attend college. With-out the option of  federal loans, underprepared students might turn toprivate education loans, which have weaker consumer protections andfewer alternatives for repayment - an issue Toby does not fully address.Many low-income students depend on the federal student loan program asit is now, and removing this option for these individuals opens the poten-tial for higher-risk borrowing. This unintended consequence outweighs thepotential for any gains the policy may put forward.Tying credit worthiness with academic success closes the door on highereducation for most first generation students, as well as under-privilegedyouth without access to the best K-12 education systems in the country.Ultimately, the title Why Student Loans Should be Based on Credit Worthiness ismisleading. The author maintains consistently that student loans should bebased upon academic preparedness. Toby argues not that student loansshould be based on credit worthiness, but that student loans should beturned into a merit-based program where students’ financial need can betaken into account as a secondary requirement. Toby makes an overly-simplistic comparison between higher education loans and credit cards.The argument is that since credit cards are based upon credit worthiness asdefined by debt load and repayment history, for example, student loansshould also be based on a definition of  worthiness. In the case of  studentloans, the definition of  worthiness is academic achievement. Using aca-demic achievement as the defining factor in granting federal student loansattempts to lower default rates whose burden ultimately falls upon taxpay-ers.The Lowering of  Higher Education fails to create a convincing foundationfor the use of  academic success as a basis for credit-worthiness. It is moreso a reflection on the failures of  the current system rather than a source ofsolutions for a new student loan system. The Lowering of  Higher Education isan argument more about merit aid versus need-based aid, instead of  creditworthiness. With little research released to defend his position, Toby’sreliance on generalizations is evident throughout the text and limits theargument’s ability to withstand academic analysis. Toby’s argument thatuniversal access, grade inflation, under preparedness, and financial burdenshave created a breakdown in the quality of  higher education in Americareads more as an opinion-based editorial rather than anything backed bystatistics or research. These shortcomings of  the higher education systemhave been studied previously, but none have clearly been identified as theroot cause. Although Toby’s statements may convince those unfamiliarwith the intricacies of  federal student loan policies and the struggle withbalancing access and student success, they fail to create an argument thatthe targeted audience - those familiar with student loans and policy consid-erations - could support without research. The Lowering of  Higher Educationdoes not prove itself  to be a worthwhile take on the student loan problem.What Toby fails to do is offer a convincing argument about why creditworthiness should be the definition for which federal students loans arebased.

Book Review: The Lowering of Higher Education in America: Why Student Loans Should Be Based on Credit Worthiness

https://ir.library.louisville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1369&amp;context=jsfa

Book Review: The Lowering of Higher Education in America: Why Student Loans Should Be Based on Credit Worthiness

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Louisville