we need the academy and teacher preparation to partner with us, next to us. the idea we will send people out for this training is not going to work. it needs to happen yesterday. this is not going to work. my only problem -- i am concerned that the opportunity be a strong partner [indiscernible] >> how much confidence do you

have that faculty are prepared to train teachers to be effective under the common core standards? >> i have the belief that this is new for everyone. there are no senses of immediate expertise but there is an individual expertise. once again a great opportunity to build the confidence. very quickly if we could do this together. i have confidence that our institutions learn and learn quickly. >> , the faculty -- let's remember that the productive relationship between high- quality researchers and design brings together evidence. all of us here -- fear that trend to change call the

institution by institution is daunting. why don't we look at, in court? telling people in with the college board does, sharing high quality courses that are designed and built upon and refined through educators working together. >> i want to separate these four second. i could not agree with you more that brilliant minds helped shape a common core. as opposed to the construction -- >> it was a combination of mathematicians and educators. if you're making turf courses -- >> we have teacher preparation programs across the country. many of them not the kinds of institutions for which people are recruited.

we're trying to get these programs to overhaul what they do. i understand the value of trying to share practices. i am curious. are there other ways to help change what is going on? >> let me pause and celebrate your candor in the following sense. this is the time in a time of limited resources to step out. when people ask what more resources to need to implement it worries me as a question in the sense that we have to learn how to redirect and be more efficient and to get an edge of the few things these standards are asking us to do. i am saying you're right.

as a system, producing productive adult growth to people growing. i think all this share the instinct that the review of student work, there is a merchant baited that teachers getting to that level of detail seems more productive. the second body of evidence is when teachers learn to do something in the context of a specific course rather than generically teaching. some of our ap data is encouraging. this may do more. it seems people tend to learn through the work they do rather than separate forum. it is by teaching -- as att today and discussing it. it is not separable. we have not built these delivery systems over 30 or 40 years. the data is daunting.

that is the next generation of reform. it is where jake candor and your right. now, and -- none of us know exactly. the teacher colleges are radically fragmented and anything that is not galvanizing and powerful will likely fail. reform is not a productive system. does the common core make it more likely, does it make it more likely we could convene and with the right incentives as you are describing encourage, solicit excellence. let me give you the last example. >> do you think it does? >> of course i do. published materials have been mediocre for some time. the tools we hand teachers are vitriol to the commitment to children.

all larger school districts lined up behind the criteria to stand together to assist those materials must improve. that helps the publishers and kids. similarly for teacher education. >> david made the point about published materials. this is something that has been frustrating for districts. currently it is north of 25,000 titles on amazon that promote themselves as aligned with the common core in various ways. how does your team figure out which ones are lined and which will work in this new environment? >> we're taking a little bit different approach. we're trying to go to a teacher- centered approach where teachers build units backwards starting with the course and aligning assessments and trading strategies and choosing

resources that meet their needs in that unit. we're trying to move away from the big book that we all had on our desk and we all read, the various snippets of different pieces of literature. and go toward the notion of less is more and shoes the most and meatist materials. one of the things we're -- we encourage teachers to think about, is that the only to learn it, or could students have some choice? maybe a menu would yield better information we have on student motivation. students have to see this as meaningful to their lives to have the level of engagement

that ends up being a sustainable. we are trying to move away from the district-wide adoptions and try to empower teachers that are working together to purchase the things they feel are most relevant to their students and the way they are going to approach these outcomes. >> this is raising an interesting skill set that is sitting in front of us that we're watching in a lifetime. all of this conversation is emerging in our ability to help facilitate persistence and grit with our students and teachers. we have not focused on that as a skill set. a quick surf across items and you did not get that so you go to remediation.

the ability to persist in complex tasks and in fewer deeper texts and problem solving. i wanted to link that back to the teacher preparation peace. that is a skill set we need to get our hands around pretty quickly. we could talk about the research about that and about duckworth. it is finding its place dead center. support around that it has been missing at the moment. we are getting support on

content but not on those types of skills. >> what would that entail? >> how we coached students and faculty to persist and to develop the skill set that simple getting it is not going to help you in the common core. there is a notion of persistence in understanding, persistence incomprehension and in moving saw if you did not get a first time you failed. skill set. you didn't get it and we can give the to someone else for remediation and that is not how it worked in a classroom. this area affects the home school relationship and the crossed teaching relationship

and the student to student relationship. >> one thing that this implies is an emphasis on skills that we don't necessarily assess right now. and do not factor into our discussion. i understand you wanted to start doing some assessments that were along the line of common core but it did make sense to try to discontinue some of the other assessments. so districts have to do more assessments then they have historically done. given the concerns about the amount of testing, how does one play this through?

how did you work with educators? >> you communicate very well. one piece i have not heard it is the role of parents in this. i think they play a critical role as well. we have started educating parents. >> what does that entail? >> it is district wide. we worked with parents example of things that your children will be exploring and how it will impact your child and support what we are doing at the school level. we have talked to our chamber of commerce and business community so they understand what we will be doing. we are trying to bring our community along as we make these changes.

we will decrease the number of assessments that we want to provide. but obviously we will be doing the opposite during this interim period. i think a lot of folks are understanding the approach that we're taking. we are trying to move slow in order to move fast later. community. -- we're trying to educate our community. >> a lot of these tasks are more in depth and require performance assessments. sometimes well done performance assessments do not feel like

testing. one way we're doing more assessments -- some of the things we're asking students to do, they would not -- if you ask if they were having a task, they would say no. we are measuring their knowledge and skills while they are working on these products or projects. i think the vision of assessment is in transition. we are moving to more rich assessments. >> one of the questions this raises around no child left behind -- as we move to more sophisticated assessments, it is harder to get clear readings if children have mastered basic skills.

>> why do you say that? >> there are questions about whether the reliability of those assessments is as clear cut as multiple choice assessments. there are questions about some teachers have a less rigorous push back if you like. nutshell lot behind as a safeguard against some schools turning a blind eye are simply passing the buck on the worse- off kids. >> one thing that's important to keep in mind is we are at the cusp of a new way of doing schooling.

ofre in the micro infancy this. we will be learning so much. we will be shocked in five years. at what this looks like compared to the picture in our heads now. there are so many conditions in place that will make innovation happen in this field in a different way going forward then it has for the past 100 years. it starts with the common part of common core. and technology which we keep alluding to. we're not hearing yetwhat the technology piece is going to look like. that has to do with teacher preparation as well as the assessment and day-to-day introduction. i think a lot of this will be shifting out from under us. the goal we have to have for

education is to create a continuous improvement system out there. we have to understand how things are working and start adapting understanding. i think these assessments have different purposes. did the kid learn from what i just taught? make sure students with disabilities are getting access to the same rigorous standards that the affluent kids in the suburban schools are. there are different tools to enter a different questions. we do not know all the answers to this right now. >> we hope we're doing it right. i think we are. there are some fundamental

shifts. ease underestimating the with which common core is going to allow this transition. a much more delicate form of assessment. this transition -- i fall down along the lines that i want to be careful that we move away from being responsible and accountable for the progress of some groups of students. no child left behind has been important in doing that. we will move to fewer pieces of content. the conversation began around that. for that type of assessment,you

have a leaner, thinner form of assessment that can be done less frequently to accomplish that. at the same time, it left an introduction to another type of assessments. which will catch application and in france, -- inference, the types of skill sets that will come with the use of the common core. worries about that piece of art salvable. there indications that affect school accountability. i want to lay out two of those implications. for students and adults, we to get our hands around the ability for collective responsibility and accountability and individual simultaneously. we're voting on the new evaluation system. teachers. it was difficult to hammer out.

but it occurred. there's school-wide accountability that every teacher shares. school-wide results are for everybody. this notion of literature is not based in the english class from alone. and second, students are moving very quickly away from a single piece of sole-office-ship. how we wrestle with scoring that is happening in -- it is

happening in real time. there are pretty big implications. their implications for the evaluation systems. >> one question is, you're going to have teachers under your new teacher in violation system. -- evaluation system. their growth will be a component of this. that will migrate from one system to another. there will be concerns about whether that is a fair measure of teachers. how are you going to make that transition? how are you making that transition without the thing blowing up on you? >> we have thought a lot about this. we will have a framework that is tested.

it will be around a collective set of measures and individuals set of measures. happens in my classroom. and by having a very balanced round of peace. we argued that the lion's share of the majority, that number is less important than making sure that good practices in the classroom. and when it comes to the steps, we already know that the structure is balanced and they are able to handle growth over time on that piece, but added the classroom based and school based at the same time. that is what we attempted to do. we think that the structure of

balance around the individual was thought through in launching it. >> the only thing i would add to that is having been in guilford county and now in durham, we have implemented those systems and what we have found is that there is more by -- in because we are all working toward a common goal -- there is more of a buy in because we all have a commonyou all have a role in making sure that the child is successful. it did work. >> exactly. i happen to agree 100%. and i think joann's statement about being on the edge of an entirely different world means that we will be very unproductive in this country if

we say that the accountability and assessments systems we put in five or eight years ago are either good or bad. what we are holding on to is the same issue that will be nonproductive as opposed to improvement in migration. conversation over the last hour, fox i would worry that if i were a say, oh, this is really hard. i want to brief for a moment about beautiful simplicity. that is, if we want to talk about assessment of literacy, which seems a very big, a this.

if a student can read complex and demanding text and write about it clearly, if they can read, i gather and detect evidence, analyze and apply it, they are very often on their way to college. imagine in a master assessment for the standards, can you give assessments, analyze them and write about them clearly? notice a turn to the fundamentals. what is interesting about the return to fundamentals when anything critical changes. reading dense, critical texts and writing about it clearly were arts long ago. they still predict college readiness. let's talk about kids -- to take this example. the reading carefully and writing about it.

let's talk about ap readers where the ap community respects one another, but teachers, to check each other's work. using technology to render that more efficient. that is a technology community of concentration. communities of teachers gatherings to work, treating artists and checkers better good for, not feedback, but overall performance. what i mean is the exams now being developed and will require kids and for the first time every year to analyze source material and write about it clearly. that is work that is doable tomorrow. if kids can do that well, they can do a lot of other things well as well. >> let's take the opportunity to open it up to the audience. i would ask a couple of things. when you speak, please identify yourself by name and affiliation.

and as always, please ask a question. [laughter] we will get about 15 seconds in and if i do not see someone come into my will give someone else a shot. >> can someone talk about money? will this be more costly, this transition? and given the state budget on education, is that possibly a huge hurdle for this transaction to take place? >> i do not believe in many instances it will be more money. as david mentioned earlier, you have to look at some of the resources they currently have, and in some instances you have to redirect those resources. obviously, we are trying to reach a higher standard, so from that perspective, yes.

but to say that in and of itself it will cost you more money, i would not say that in total. but obviously, there are some expenses that we will incur. one of the things that we had to do was to help our teachers understand that some of these resources we already have. instead of utilizing textbooks, we will help utilize other resources for the students. >> the answer is, no, it will not cost more money. if i had the state budget in massachusetts and california. but i do not. particularly around technology and professional development, they need to be increased around those. you can do that through thoughtful policy. less prison building and more preschool building. >> i believe you, about $18

million less year. could you talk a little bit about how you made those reallocations? >> that is exactly what we did. we literally went through our budget line by line. douglas middle class community is the lowest in the district. we receive very little of any federal dollars for unique populations, just because we do not have them in our census data. the numbers are in other places. we were faced with an $18 million budget shortfall. and in addition, our class's had grown too large. our teachers have been on a freeze is. we had this untenable set of circumstances, but we were dedicated to figuring it out. we reduced class size.

we cut the $18 million. we reduced costs going forward. we gave them raises. >> where the money come out of? >> we had things that are more challenging in our contracts. we had a severance program, for example, we were paying people about $40,000 per year who were leaving the district. we allocated that line item to the teachers who were going to continue to be in our district and continue to work with our students. you have to look at the things you've been doing in the past and at the same time, moving forward, things you have to phase out. we have had in our contracts approaches we had taken concerning budget of utilities, which would change. >> i am torn on this subject. i think we need to understand a very brave thing has happened.

educators throughout this country have raised their hands for more demanding education for their kids. source in the coming years will likely drop and many of my colleagues will be called incompetent. and in fact, they are merely telling the truth. no good deed goes unpunished, as we all know. as a community, it is time to rally behind his candor and

courage and prepare the public to consider smart investment, to support people who are making great choices and doing their work. it is time for society to reinvest in this work. at the same time, mediocre and crop the stuff is just as expensive as excellent stuff. we need to demand higher standards in the things that we purchase. some excellent stuff will be free. can we build our networks and be equally germane about investment and standing behind people and also a tough-minded enough to admit that a lot of what we have invested in so forcefully creates no return for children. there is a kind of dual candor that is possible.

>> i'm michael with the education writers association. my question is about the wraparound effort involved in getting students up to speed. we have involved parents in the discussion we have involved state and federal leaders in the discussion on how to improve student achievement. is there an element to a common core with this extended learning into the school or a test that suggests improved student competency in the source? is that on the horizon? >> there will be an absolute

need to do that. it comes with her work with students and the traditional notion of the fayyad school they definitely changing. technology will be moving back very quickly for us. technology is our friend. just a brief word around the waivers and watching the government support during doubt, absolutely, that is going back to the district to do exactly what you just said. that is a partnership opportunity that is very much needed and very much being directed along the lines you have suggested, which is how we think about opportunity for students and that comes from a variety of places. the group will move differently

than just a company coming in and doing remediation for 25 minutes after school. >> my question is building on that, but going a little bit further. it builds on some of the ideas of breaking the system [no audio] a lot of the students who are behind will lead not just extra learning time, but [no audio] how are they thinking about compensation that uses five years or six years, particularly for students who are not -- who are over age and under credit?

>> we are definitely looking at competency based construction. especially if you have to repeat the course if you fail at it. we're looking at the key outcomes of this course and how we can approach the remediation peace differently. and away from the state being the answer. we do not believe that it is. the online approach has opened the door pretty wide and brought the public sentiment around to that thinking, that it is all about demonstrating your ability and not about sitting at a desk. moving into the on-line programs, but also the in- person programs also. >> i think you are going to see very quickly the accountability systems about what middle school completion looks like. it is going to shift. i'm very glad to endorse that. a cohort based graduation is, i

think, a bit of an enemy to helping students get there. it does not mean that it should be a move away from the accountability of completion. the second thing is, i think you are going to be hosting a forum in five years about the whole construction of the high- school diploma, but in particular, the course of credit. i think there schools will no longer owned a monopoly on that. students are walking in now with on line courses from stanford and yale and they want to apply this to the transcript. and while you so appropriately focused on the students that are struggling, students are dancing in an amazing ways and there is a unique opportunity to help both.

we think two years out. >> the amazing thing for me is i think two years out, and even if congress moves on the authorization of sea, or another round of waivers, which seems more likely, if we talk about the size of these ships and what it looks like an school accountability, does that mean that it is incumbent on the and about the direction they are moving? are these directions that are unimaginable under the nclb? >> yes. [laughter] we're about to get a new round of assessment. we need to look at them as word. the standards are even knew. standards over time.

>> and i think is worth saying out loud. i do want to credit mclb and perhaps, unpopularly stand for it and its vigilance for all kids. as sunny as i am about the common core, letting schools and do their own thing can be quite hazardous to certain types of kids. and we have to do some real thinking about how to guarantee acceleration. we now have said that as clearly as we are to in the discussion prevent discretion does not mean a lack of vigilance. >> if anything, we can move to a more personalized view where every single job if they need.

>> top of continuous improvement is admirable, but concerned about when you establish a set of standards that it tends to be -- the lethargy sets in over time, intentionally or no, and it becomes increasingly difficult to make the kinds of adjustments and improvements that 1.0 demand. what do you say to that? >> these things are slim. that allows for a slimmer platforms current revision is not a fad. there is overwhelming evidence

that mathematics predicts the future of success. the notion that reading in greater complexity critics your success in college, the evidence is overwhelming. the evidence first. also, please, remember the eraser as well as the pen. if we're going to revise the standards, take away. teachers do not get more time. kids do not get more time. that is the elegance and we have to insist upon. >> my name is coury. i am a parent of four. my question is two-fold and for the practitioners on the panel. what research is being dedicated to and tools provided around teachers being able to learn the common core and reference it in their daily activity? and two, what resources and

tools are being provided for those teachers to monitor their performance against those standards individually and collectively with those students on a daily basis? >> in my particular school district, we have -- like i mentioned earlier, we have embedded the common core in the curriculum that we are developing and then we a line that into a new evaluation instrument, so we are not asking them to teach something new and different, but evaluating them on yesterday's. we have intentionally aligned the curriculum that goes above and beyond even what the common core asks. and from there, we have also paid attention to the professional development peace and the whole notion of drive-by pd does not work. you sit around and then go back your concert and do exactly what you did yesterday.

instead, professional development that is presented in a lot of different modes and attends to model the kinds of the classroom and instructional experience that we want our students to have. they're not only learning how to teach differently and what to teach differently, but experiencing it in their own professional development opportunities. realigning resources to do other things instead. >> would this have been impractical prior to the common core? is this something that the common core uniquely does to try to help teachers? >> i do not think common core is the catalyst. we are realigning what we need to do for teachers and students. it makes sense. we are asking them to do

something that they were not trained to do. it is unfair to put out this new evaluation instrument that is very rigorous, specific. the state of colorado requires that next fall 50% of students evaluation is required to be on the new achievement get and new standards could be on the way you do that is to realign what you're doing with your teachers. >> almost a complete overhaul of professional development, and a focus on the students that have the greatest challenges in los angeles. professional development was probably concentrated at the core principles, so that their

entire fundamental obligation has moved from running a school to improving teaching and learning inside a school. cannot get better unless someone tells me get better or round of peace. and secondly, the work of teacher development, very public. all the world gets to see it. this notion of a publicness to the growth, that is important. you just cannot get better in private. and it is as free as possible from early judgment so that you create an environment around learn in. -- learning. >> my name is david sherman from the american federation of

teachers. i want to say that the american federation of teachers, as was mentioned, was very involved in the development of the common core, not we as an organization, the country. we support it with every fiber of our being. we want to see it work. but we are very nervous. we are mainly nervous because what we are hearing from all over the country with few exceptions is that teachers are not being prepared or given the right kind of professional development. they have a few days of the workshop. but teachers, and frankly, parents, are just not being prepared. i do have a question. since there is no teacher voice here, and going to take a moment if you do not mind. just a minute. the fact of the matter is,

teachers are very supportive of the common core. teachers all across the country, but they want help to do it the right way, and they are not getting it. the federal government put in $350 million for assessments. nothing for curriculum. i know you cannot do curriculum. nothing for professional development or anything else. state across the country are talking about what they're doing, but they are not doing much. >> so the question is then? >> the question is, what can we do now to make sure that we get the roll out of the common core on the right track, so we do not see history repeating itself and have failing standards? >> i could not agree with you more. i think that is right on. this is a golden moment for the transformation of both sides on this issue. if you could help us create new

structures to allow those things to take place and hold us accountable for providing the professional development, that would be a breakthrough moment. we are currently trying to do this inside the traditional ossified structures. x dollars for the moment and you pay x price to get it done. both could be a huge lead in that piece. >> just so i understand you, you are suggesting, for instance, contractual restrictions on professional development are getting in the way across trying to provide support? >> we are trying to do this process, but it's completely apples and oranges.

it is not the the contract language is good, bad, or indifferent. it is just not working for this. what would be worse is more bad professional development. you create the opportunity for a very different structure and is just as bad as the first one, that would be very terrible. and very disrespectful. the notion of side by side of the element, of a new vehicle and the content of the vehicle -- and i would argue been a teacher-driven -- would be very helpful. secondly, i think that teachers need to have this conversation with parents. and provide ways to elevate leadership for teachers in that place, that is a huge piece. >> in states like north carolina, we have had challenges with getting teachers -- not all of them, but some of

them -- to address participate in professional development because there is the idea that i only work from this time to this time. we have had other teachers who say, i will take this on and i want to understand it and move it forward. i think the bag is a little mixed, but what we are trying to do is to provide opportunities for teachers to learn this. but i will also say this to you, in an urban districts with low performing schools, we want to say, we have met the challenge, so tell us what to do. those teachers rise to the occasion. but i think my view is a little different than a unionized state where you have a contract. >> all three of the superintendent's talked about thoughtful efforts to make professional development pay off in this case.

and it does strike me that you hardly ever talked to superintendent or board members who tell you we are doing lousy professional development. almost everybody claims they feel they are doing it well. but it is actually the same lousy, ineffectual stuff. i do not know how we get our hands around that. >> one of the things i tell my staff all the time is, rather than us develop the professional development in the central office, ask the teachers what they need and let them develop it. that is what we did for the last two summers. we sent out a call for proposals from teachers. we made sure that teachers were development. >> alice kaine with teach plus.

my question is about retention of effective teachers. the reason i ask is that teach plus in recent months has had conferences by teachers and 43 around the country. we have had about 2000 participate so far and thousands are on wait lists. are you thinking about it this way, and what are the budgetary implications? does common core have an unintended consequence of [no audio] >> galvanizing teachers on a

large scale has been so darn hard. and when you think you are doing well for teachers, but it is not quite enough, this is a hard problem. what are the technologies that are emerging that have promised? i think is exactly what alice talked about. exceptional teachers can now share their work in a way they never could before. if you look expert achievea thecore.org, which is always free, it is for teachers and by teachers. if you are engaged and truly sharing stuff in a systematic

and productive way so that your teachers are making stuff on their own, then frankly, they are not just on their own. they are in a much more lively community. there is a great teacher in florida who has figured something out and there is a a a kind of liveliness. -- a kind of liveliness to this. i think those teachers who are returning to their work is because the focus is on what works. and they have a chance to have a wider impact. i think there is reason for anxiety. what it forces us to do is to find where the most promising reinvestment in teacher-led, high-quality work. >> we are going to make that the

last word. i would like to thank the sequoyah foundation and the bill and melinda gates foundation for making this possible. i would like to thank my team for putting this together. and i would like to thank the panel for terrific information. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] i wrote an article about a gardener who sent his son to college. the first in his family. the dad made $21,000 a year. he was able to borrow six figures for may private lender. there was no underwriting. this slender, by the way, saddled with the new york attorney general's office because -- i do not know if you remember, it was called the

preferred lender list where lenders were in some cases accused of paying schools for preferential treatment and for them to steer students toward a particular loan product. that was the case with this letter. when you think about -- you can understand the anger and a generation of students may rightly feel duped in some ways and stuck with very little relief at this point. now that they are so far in debt. >> later today, the student debt crisis. starting at 6:07 p.m. eastern. a panel on the impact of student dead on families. fall is live at 8:00 p.m. with your calls and e-mails and tweets. later today on c-span. >> afghan president hamid karzai who is in washington, d.c. this week met with secretary leon

panetta today ahead of meetings with president obama at the white house tomorrow. president karzai will be speaking at georgetown university tomorrow on relations between his country in the u.s. at 5:30 p.m. eastern we'll have live coverage on c-span. >> if you ask how many are self identify libertarians, people who describe themselves as a libertarian, you might be getting between 10% and 15%. if you ask questions about different ideological things, do you believe in x or y, depending on which poll you get, you get 30% of americans calling them libertarians. are you economically conservative but socially liberal, you get over half of americans call themselves that is what they are. because people see these things it does not mean they believe them.

if you ask do you want smaller government, they say yes. do you want government to spend less money and they say yes. if you ask them to cut an item on the budget, they do not want to cut anything. it is not clear they believe lyonesse. i have to save roughly the lowest 10% and as high as 30%. libertarians if they were conscious and political, they could be a big movement. it could be a big group of people who never shared ideology and could have influence in politics but for various reasons they're not organized that way. >> a political primer in libertarianism. on what you might not know sunday night any pm on "q&a". vice-president joe biden held a meeting with sportsmen and wildlife interest groups as part of the white house gun violence task force. the vice president said a consensus is emerging over

proposals for tightening background checks and banning high capacity ammunition magazines. his leading an administrative- wide review of gun safety laws and met today with the national rifle association and representatives from the entertainment industry. this is 15 minutes. >> let me begin by thanking you for being here. you represent the bulk of the sportsmen in this country. you all know this is a complicated issue. there is no singular solution to how we deal with the kinds of things that happened in newtown or colorado or in general, gun violence in america today. the president and i and the cabinet, we understand this is a complicated issue. that is why when the president asked me to do this in conjunction with my colleagues in the cabinet, what we did is

we put together a pretty extensive list of what we consider the stakeholders wanting to do with the issue of gun violence in america. the first groups mean that west where -- would not surprise you. national law enforcement organizations. also, we got a sense of -- to give you a sense of what we have done so far, we met with the american medical community, a group of about 15 leading medical doctors representing organizations across the country. we have met with at risk youth and children's advocacy groups from the alliance to promise america to the boys and girls club, etc.

we believe this is cultural as much as it is weapons themselves. we met with domestic violence prevention communities. we met with justice organizations like the aba. we met with the national legal aid and defenders associations, prosecutors. we met with national service organizations. kawanoas, rotary international. we have met with youth groups. we have met with gun safety advocates. yesterday that meeting took place here. also, a dozen other organizations -- also, a dozen other organizations. and we met with educators and parents from the school boards to the state school offices and associations.

again, the governors of those folks. and maybe one of the most important things we have been focusing on is the mental health community. the american academy for childhood and adolescence psychiatry, the national counselor community of behavioral health centers. there is a perspective among health providers that mental illness is a major component. and yesterday, we finished up on in this room with about 17 members of the faith community, which in all the years i have been doing this, the first time there has been overwhelming consensus on the evangelical groups nationwide. particularly those from the rural areas. the national catholic conference of bishops.

the muslim community. because this does up a significant moral dimension to it. how do we make the american community safer? how do we go about it? and tonight, we meet with too. later, i need with industry-- meet with industry representatives, as well as the nra, and the executive director of defense, the small arms advisory council, etc.. the point i am trying to make to you is, we realize this requires all the stakeholders to give us the best ideas as to how we deal with what i said at the outset is a complicated problem. there is no single answer. to go back, i know a lot of you have been dealing with this issue since my times as chairman of the judicial committee of the

way back and in the 1970's. if you look at the tragic events that have attracted some much attention, it is hard to pinpoint what you could have done to be sure it did not happen. but there are also things we know. we know there are certain actions we take back that have diminished the extent of gun violence that otherwise would be occurring in the united states. and so, the kinds of things -- there is an emerging set of recommendations. not coming from me, but coming from groups we have met with. and i am going to focus on the ones that relate primarily to gun and ownership and the type of weapons that can beyond. one is, there is a surprising -- so far -- surprising recurrence of suggestions that we have universal background checks.

not just closed with the gun show loophole, but total universal background checks. there has been a lot of discussion from the groups we have met with so far. i think the chairman has been in almost all the meetings with me. how do we share the information? how to get information -- for example convicted felons in the state -- how do they get in the nics? that is the thing that the gun dealer goes to to check your background, whether you are a felon. it does not do a lot of good if some states have a backlog of 60,000 felons they never registered. so, we've got to talk about -- there's a lot of talk about how

we entice or what is the impediment keeping states from relaying this information. there's also a good deal of talk about gun safety. and what responsibility goes along with gun ownership. that is something i am really anxious to talk to all of you about. there's also -- surprising -- my former colleagues in the senate who have previously been opposed to any restrictions on gun ownership or what type of weapons can be purchased, as ever, there is i have never heard quite as much talk about limiting high-capacity magazines as i have heard spontaneously from every group we have met with so far.

and the last area, which is an area that has come up, is the question of the ability of any federal agency to do research on the issue of gun violence. for example, we are meeting before the week is out with the video gaming industry. to use pat moynihan's expression, when we first started talking about this, back in the 1980's, he said we started by defining deviancy down. he said we had this fascination with violent thoughts back in the 1930's, and he stood on the senate floor and he held up the new york times. on page 54 -- in the very back of the paper -- and entire family including grandmother, mother, father, children were basically assassinated in their apartment.

they think it may have been about a drug deal. he said "we can define deviancy down." one of the things that prohibit -- the early part of this century, 2004, the centers for disease control gathering information about the kinds of injuries and what sort of energies and what are the source of the injuries? it kind of reminded me in a meeting yesterday. i was around in the 1970's. the only guy who can remember this -- i hope i am not insulting him -- is ray lahood. he remembers the auto industry.

he remembers the whole question of traffic safety and highway safety. there was a big fight when i first got in the senate that began in the late 1960 fell through early 1970's. the automobile industry did not want to allow the department of transportation to acquire statistics on the type of accidents that occur. they were not able to literally acquire the information. because the concern was it would lead to calls for some rational regulations for the guardrails for automobiles. i remember when we finally broke through and the department of transportation started keeping misinformation, they found out if my memory is correct -- the vast majority of drivers -- the steering wheel damage to their solar plexus, penetrated their upper body cavity, damaged their

heart. the reason the industry did not want us knowing that, we had to do something about the steering wheel. make sure that the steering wheel collapses. make sure there is an ability to absorb shock. all of a sudden, they said -- you cannot make an automobile that does not have a steering wheel column with the following attributes. you have to make an automobile that can absorb x amount of shock. all of a sudden we found out passengers were being killed going through the windshield. skull fractures, hitting their head on the cross bar. all of a sudden, it made sense. why not make air bags? we are saving lives.

as you know, the real restrictions now on the ability of any agency in government to gather information about what kind of weapons are used most to kill people. how many weapons are used in traffic accidents? are weapons used in gang warfare in our major cities? are they legally purchased or purchased through a straw man? we do not have that information. and the irony is, we are prohibited under laws and appropriations bills. i want to talk to you all a little bit, as an owner of shotguns, as a guy who is no great hunter -- mostly caskey shooting -- i do not quite -- mostly skeet shooting -- i cannot quite know how we

determine what is happening. there are a whole lot of things i want to talk to you about. i did want to talk to you about what we have done so far. we will meet again. this afternoon we had meetings. tomorrow afternoon we have meetings. i am trying to have a telephone conferences with the manufacturers. there has got to be some common ground here. to not solve every problem, but to acknowledge the probability that we have seen these mass shootings occur and to diminish the probability that these shootings will occur as schools and to diminish the probability that these weapons will be used, firearms will be used dealing with the average behavior that occurs in our society.

that is what this is all about. there is no conclusion i have reached with my colleagues. i have put together a series of recommendations. there is a very tight window to do this. i committed to him i would have these recommendations to him by tuesday. it does not mean it is the end of the discussion. but the public wants us to act. i will conclude by saying, in all my years involved with these issues, there is nothing that has pricked the conscience of the american people, nothing that has gone to the heart and mattered more than the visions that these people have of these little six-year-old kids riddled not shot -- riddled, riddled with bullet holes in their classroom.

and the public demands we speak to it. and i am sure we cannot guarantee this will never happen again, but as the president said, if what we do and what we say only saves one life, that makes the difference. i do not believe we are imposing on the rights that the second amendment guarantees. now with your permission, let's get down to business. i think the press for being here. -- thank the press for being here. >> back in the heyday of the private student loan market, you saw a lot of families that were not necessarily going to

traditional colleges. perhaps the child was going to a music school. i wrote an article about a gardener that sent his son to college. the dad made about $21,000 per year. that was the family income. he was able to borrow six figures for his son. there was no underwriting. this lender, by the way, settled with the new york attorney general's office. it was called the preferred lender list where lenders were accused of paying schools are preferential treatment to steer students toward a particular loan product. that was the case with this lender. you can sort of understand the anger and how a generation of students may feel duped in some

ways and dock with very little relief at this -- stuck with very ve little relief at this point. >> marion wayne joins a panel on the student that that is put upon families. follow with "washington journal" reporter, josh mitchell, leader today on c- span. >> friday on "washington journal" john engler on the fiscal cliff deal reached in congress and the upcoming budget battles that await the 113th congress. stephanie schriock looks at women in congress. plus, your e-mails, phone calls,

and tweets on c-span. >> afghan president, who is in washington, d.c., that with secretary pineda earlier today. he will have meetings of president obama tomorrow. there also be a talk at a university regarding relations. >> i think that collectivize nation of the minds of american founding fathers is particularly dangerous. they were not expecting this. resenting them as such tends to -- presenting them as such tends to dramatically oversimplified the politics of the founding generation. it comes to be used as a big

battering ram to beat people over the head with in ways that i think are unsound. >> michael austin on what he calls then deep historical clause and american history. he shares his view with an associate professor of law on "book tv." >> president obama announced the white house chief of staff, jack lew, as his choice to head the treasury department. the secretary praised the outgoing secretary geithner, knowing the challenges he would race four years ago. jack lew will take over over the department in the middle of a debate he trained the senate and the congress about about how to raise the debt ceiling. this is 15 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, the

president of the united states, accompanied by tim geithner and jacob lew. >> good afternoon, everyone. please have a seat. a little more than four years ago i stood with mr. tim geithner, the first nominee to my cabinet. we were two months into the financial crisis. the stock market had cratered. bank after bank was on the verge of collapse. worst of all, more than 800,000 americans would lose their jobs in just that month. at the bottom was probably not yet in sight. i could not blame tim when he told me he was not the right guy for the job. [laughter] but on news that tim's extensive experience with economic policy made him eminently qualified and i knew he could hit the ground

running. as chairman of the federal reserve, he had just spent chaotic weeks emerged in the crisis and had been working with the treasury to save the financial system. then with the wreckage of our economy still smoldering, i asked tim to help us put it back together. thanks in large part to his steady hand, our economy has been growing for the past three years. our businesses have created nearly 6 million new jobs. the money we spend to save the financial system has largely been paid back. we put in place rules to prevent that kind of financial collapse from ever happening again. the auto industry was saved. we made sure taxpayers are not on the hook if the biggest firms fail again. we took steps to halt underwater homeowners come up for air and

sell goods overseas. we have begun to reduce our deficit through a mix of spending cuts and a tax system that when we came in was too skewed toward wealthy americans. when the history books are written, tim geithner is going to go down as one of our finest secretaries of the treasury. [applause] don't embarrass him. [laughter]

on a personal note, tim has been a wonderful friend and a dependable adviser throughout these last four years. there is an unofficial saying over at the treasury "no peacocks, no jerks, no whiners." that would be a good saying for all of washington.[laughter] no one embodies that ideal better than tim geithner. i had to get on my knees two years ago to convince him to stay on a little bit longer, and i could not be more grateful to carol and the entire geithner family for allowing him to make the sacrifices that are cabinet members ask of their families in serving their country. the fact is, while a lot of work

remains, especially to build new pathways for working folks to rise into the middle class, our position is better for tomorrow than most of the countries hit by the financial crisis. the tough decisions have been made and carried out. i understand that tim is ready for a break. obviously, we are sad to see him go. i cannot think of a better person to continue tim's work at the treasury than jack lew. this is bittersweet not only because tim is leaving, but because jack has been my chief of staff for the last year. he was my budget director before that. i trust his judgment. i know fewer people with greater integrity than the man to my left. i do not want him to go, because it is working out really well for me to have him here in the white house.

my loss will be the nation's gain. jack has the distinction of having worked and succeeded in some of the toughest jobs in washington and the private sector. he helped negotiate the deal between president reagan and tip o'neill to save social security. for all the talk out there about deficit reduction, and making sure our books are balanced -- he is the guy who did it. 3 times. he helped oversee one of our nation's finest universities and one of our largest investment banks. in my administration, he has managed operations for the state department and the budget for the entire executive branch. for the past year, i have saw his advice on virtually every decision i have made from economic policy to foriegn

policy. one of the reasons he has been so effective in this town is he is a low-key guy who prefers to surround himself with policy rather than television cameras. he has worked with members of both parties to forge principled compromise. maybe most importantly, the son of a polish immigrant, a man of deep and devout faith, jack knows for every dollar we budget, every decision we make, it has to be an expression of who we wish to be as a nation. our values. values that say everybody gets a fair shot at opportunity. and that we expect all of us to fulfill our individual aspirations. jack has my complete trust. i know i am not alone in that. in the words of one former senator, having him on your team is like having a player on your team and you know he will do

well. i thank him for that. rmed as he will be confi soon as possible. i want to personally thank both of these men and their familie, especially carrol and ruth -- for their extraordinary service to this country. and with that, i would like both of them to say a few words. >> mr. president, it has been a privilege to serve you. i am honored and grateful that you asked me to do this. really, i am. i am proud of what the treasury and your economic team have been able to accomplish these past four years. when you stepped into the role of president, you were confronted with the worst crisis in generations. you may be necessary, perilous choices that saved the american

people, save american industry, save the global economy from the failing financial system. the response to the crisis did not solve all the nation's challenges. it could not have done so. but the actions you took, along with those of a forceful and creative federal reserve, have made the country stronger and have put us in a much better position to face the many challenges still ahead of us. and they are many. i have the greatest respect for jack lew. i know him as a man of exceptional judgment, calm under pressure, with an extraordinary record of experience over the decades. he is committed to defending the safety net for the elderly and the pour.-- poor. he understands what it takes to create conditions for broader economic growth and opportunity. and he understands that to govern responsibly is to govern with the recognition that we

have limited fiscal resources. like jack, i have spent my professional life in this world of public policy and public service. as all of you know, our family carried a large share of the burden that we share in public life. i am incredibly proud that my family have been willing to allow me to do this and i think them for their support and their patients, and i understand there nderstand,es,, and i u their occasional impatience. [laughter] i want to express my admiration for the men and women of the treasury department. those who serve you during these years of crisis, and the civil servants of the treasury, with whom i started working in 1988. they are exceptional public servants. i am very proud of what you

accomplished and i am very confident my successor will find them to be the extraordinary assets they are to the nation. i am also hopeful that americans will look to the challenges we face today and decide, as many in this room have, that despite the divisive state of our political system today that serving your country is compelling and rewarding work. that was my experience. and i am grateful and will always be grateful to you for having given me the opportunity is to have served you as the 75th secretary of the treasury. [applause]

>> mr. president, it has been my honor to serve as your chief of staff, and before that the omb and the state department. it has been a privilege to come to work every day. tim, you have been a friend and colleague for many years. actually, decades. the american people are better off for your outstanding service. i thought i knew pretty well, but it was only yester day i discovered we both share a common challenge in penmanship. [laughter] i join the president and everyone here and in wishing you and your whole family well. since i was a kid growing up in queens, i had dreams of making a difference in the world. these dreams were nurtured in a home where nothing was ever taken for granted. a will always be grateful to my parents for grounding me in values that have remained central to my personal and professional life.

i grew up professionally in the office of speaker o'neill, who demanded unvarnished advice on how best to reach the destination. he did not care about rank, only about the hard work that informed the decisions of the day. i will always be grateful. serving at omb under president clinton and more recently with the administration, i worked with one of the finest teams in the government to execute fiscal policy while promoting economic growth. i am delighted to see so many of my friends from omb here today. at the state department, i worked closely with the great secretary of state hillary clinton. as chief of staff, i have had

the privilege of working with a tremendously talented white house team that manages policy, communications, and complex operations every day with zeal and loyalty. if approved, i will join the treasury department whose people are legendary for their skill and knowledge. it is a team i have come to respect greatly. finally, my thanks to ruth and the kids. thank you, mr. president, for your trust, confidence, and friendship. serving in your administration has allowed me to live out those values my parents instilled in me. i look forward to the challenges ahead. [applause]

>> these are two outstanding public servants. i think the only point i want to make, to leave you with -- i never noticed jack's signature. [laughter] when this was highlighted yesterday in the press, i consider rescinding my appointment. jack assured me, he is going to work to make at least one letter legible in order not to debase our currency, should he be confirmed as secretary of the treasury. thank you very much, everybody. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute]

>> friday on "washington journal" business roundtable ju ohn engler on the fiscal cliff and upcoming budget battles. then stephanie schriock on increasing number of women in congress. after that, how older and younger voters view the federal budget. less, your e-mails, phone calls, and tweets. >> the afghan president, who is in d.c. this week, met with secretary panetta earlier today , ahead of meetings with president obama at the white house tomorrow.

president karzai will be speaking at georgetown university tomorrow on relations with the u.s. we'll have live coverage on friday at i 30 p.m. eastern on c-span. -- 5:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> hollywood's most famous movie stars help the government. all of them are part of a contingent of celebrities giving their time and talents to help the national war effort. >> this is out ocular culture percent of the war -- popular culture presented the war. how is it presented? how is it presented in the events in the 1930s and 1940s? how was it presented in tin pan alley, the music from the 1940s?

>> this weekend, popular culture and world war ii. lectures in history. saturday night at 8 p.m. and 10 p.m. eastern on c-span 3. >> in about an hour and a half, we will open phone lines and take calls from students and parents about student loan debt and college costs. until then, a panel discussion on the issue of student loan debt and how it is impacting families. according to a report, parents are saddled with student loans they cannot afford to repay. here is a look now. [applause] >> with a degree comes student that. debt. i'm happy to be here tonight.

i have not had much time to think about these big teacher issues since we have been in a crisis with education system in the city. it is great to take some time and have this venue and the set up to discuss these things and issues. i think propublica does a good job with this, as they do with everything. we have a fantastic panel that spans the array of expertise. marion has been carving this -- covering this for propublica. she wrote a piece that seems to be the work of months of investigation revealing the debt burden on parents and how that has been a real issue that i think a lot of people have not been talking about. you might have read on the first page of the new york times today.

a month ago is when you would have first read about it. next we have mark, the publisher of fast web.com. he is also the author of a best seller called "secrets to winning a scholarship." we also have another author who wrote the guide to surviving student debt. next is randy, who is nyu chief enrollment officer. so, to get into the solutions oriented on the discussion we will have today, the problem that everyone is familiar with -- if you type in on google "

student loan" it will think you're talking about "student l oan forgiveness." this is an issue that many are worried about. some parents are staring at their newborn baby in the hospital and wondering how to do this the way that they want to the way that their parents were able to do in previous generations. it is a massive issue. the average student graduates with $26,000 worth of debt. over 13% -- we have more student debt in this country don't have auto or credit card debt at this point. maybe it is good that we have more student debt than credit

debt, but not if people cannot pay it act. tuition prices have really outpaced the job market. let's get into the solutions. i want marion to talk about her investigative work on how this affects parents. why is this happening with parents? what are the solutions potentially on the parent side of angst that you have uncovered? >> we chose to start with parent that in this particular program. it is a federal loan program for parents to borrow to pay for their children's education. i think what was interesting about it is that a lot of people say, that of student loans have hard caps.

you could only bar of to about $30,000. offer total undergrad. ofonly borrow about $30,000 total undergrad. what was interesting about it is that there is a credit check. it is minimal. it is modest. there is not a check on income. that is what we found to be interesting about it. it speaks to a greater shift as a costs have grown. maybe these limits we have had on federal student loans are not particularly, you know, they do not meet the needs that

students and families are experiencing when they try to pay for college. there is growth in this program where parents are borrowing through this program. they are borrowing more money. we picked it because it showed a shift happening in the system right now. >> would you say that parents or the lack of income check is a glaring kind of missing piece of this? if someone has an income of $10,000 per year, they can take out a loan for $30,000? >> that is right. if they do not have a negative credit history, and we can go into a larger conversation about this, but it is backward facing. have you had a foreclosure in the past five years? have you filed for bankruptcy in the past five years? that sort of thing.

if you do not have that, you could borrow much more than you make in a year. >> why do you think people are taking on a massive amount of debt that they later cannot handle or handle more immediately? beyond education, why are they taking on more than they can handle? >> two factors -- over the past four decades, the burden of paying for college has shifted from the government to the families. the only form of financial aid are loans, especially the parent loans. the stafford loans have limits. the parent plus loans do not have a limit. that has nothing to do with the ability of the family posing ability to pay that. second, the students and the parents. they are chasing a dream.

they will sign whatever paper is put in front of them without paying attention to the details. they will figure out how to deal with that after they graduate. they should deal with that before and not after. they could do a lot more to reduce the debt, such as attending and in school public college instead of an out-of- state college or a higher costs nonprofit college or colleges with generous financial aid. can you're on campus, you buy cheaper textbooks and sell them back to the bookstore, but that is not as much as you can save by going to a less expensive college. >> is the chasing the gym aspect something that in previous generations -- is that chasing the dream aspect of this that in previous generations was more possible? is there a knowledge gap in the fact that things had changed?

why is it more of a problem now of chasing the dream? >> the debt has grown. when you have a failure of grants, and an increase of college costs, there are three ways families deal with it. one is to attend a lower-cost college. another is to not attend college at all. the third is to graduate with more debt. we see this manifesting itself among the low income students. college enrollment has increased, but there has been a shift in undergrad enrollment for the lower income students. if you go back 10 or 20 years, the debt was much lower. families could afford it better. a good rule of thumb is that -- if your debt is less than your annual income, you will be able to pay it act in 10 years.

the debt keeps going up while the incomes are relatively flat. eventually you reach a point where more families are regulating with unaffordable debt. given that they do not have an awareness of what it means to take on this amount of debt, no one is teaching them this in high schools or the colleges, it is something they are not able to do, but they need. by the time that they graduate with a lot of debt, they might be chasing a dream. someone pursuing a degree in nursing could perhaps take on more debt than someone who is producing -- pursuing religious degree. that does not mean you should abandon your dream. just be realistic with your debt. you may pick the job that pays better over the ideal path.

>> i guess the liberal arts degrees have a hard time coming to grips with this. you did a lot to work with low income students and their families. this is something that you are perfectly poised to pick up on. it makes many people uncomfortable with the idea that the old choices should be further curtailed by -- if you are a successful high school student, here we are saying that you should not think twice about your major and your college or so that a child born to a wealthier family. how do you balance that with the reality of this crisis? >> thanks. i think -- what other things that we do do at the national

consumer law center is holding a presentation of low income borrowers and we also speak with borrowers across the country. we see the outcome of what happens to people. many of them do not graduate. there are a lot of risk factors for default. i will try to answer the question. when we think of what comes to mind of who a student loan borrower is, it is important to realize that the majority of students today are nontraditional student categories. that means older, or at least 25 or older, are often financially independent and have their own families. have that in mind. the problems for traditional

students are important. i think that they get disproportional attention. my own clients, i have clients who are in their 20s and some in their 80s and 90s as well. this is a problem but goes throughout the lifetime. to answer your question, a lot of this depends on what we think the goals are of a federal aid policy. that is something we could perhaps debate a little bit. historically, the goal of the aid policy not just to get into college, but to complete and hopefully succeed financially and help with social mobility issues. looking at that goal, our policies have been a failure.

the social mobility part of higher education has not changed much in terms of what family you are born into and what your odds are of going to college. one solution i throw out is that i do not think we should be limiting opportunity at the front and so much. i think people when they make decisions are not just chasing a dream. this dream is sold to us from the beginning. college credentials to impact your income. we all make decisions with an optimism bias.

we think we are the one that will succeed. the problem for my clients is not that they make worst decisions, it is that the consequences of their decisions is so much worse. it is not the level of debt. it could be a small debt that spirals for a client. we should not leave people out to see who is going to succeed. we should not hammered people so much if they get into a little bit of trouble. we do not give people relief. we go after them forever. let's give people the opportunity to go back to school again. that is good for taxpayers too because they're more likely to repay their loans. >> nyu is used as an example in

many of these stories because it is a sought after school. you say you are uncomfortable with the parent plus program, but you rely on it like other schools. how has nyu been developing policies both from the admissions standpoint and to help students once they get there and end up in trouble? >> first, a little context. i will answer your question. i do not want to sound like the person who will push this under the rug and say student debt is ok, but context is important.

the disparity is huge as you look across this issue. we talk about a 13% default rate. it varies from 1% at some institution to 40% at others. it is a broad set of issues. i still described as a crisis. what is our definition of a crisis? i am not going to answer that. i think the context of a crisis, and the dilemma is, how do we find the talented student -- and just so you know, i am a farm boy who has worked at four different institutions with very different missions and six

different university presidents. i'm a lucky person as well. i have seen a broad array of university missions, types of students, profiles of students, and this is an issue across all students, but i do not think it is fair to compare credit-card debt and student loan debt. student loan debt is an investment in the future. there is a payoff, but not to the degree that it puts families and students in a position that will have a significant negative impact on the decisions they make post- graduation.

that is kind of the dilemma, but i think it needs to be framed differently than it typically is. it is the crisis component. everyone has debt over $100,000. that is not true. if you have ever heard john sexton speak, he will say our financial aid is not what we would like it to be. but even at nyu, the percentage of students with that over $100,000 is very small. i do think context is important. that is where i will start. there is huge disparity across different types of institutions. what we have been doing is a

number of things. i have been at nyu about 3 1/2 years. we have affected quite a bit of change in that time. john sexton is completely committed to the following. our goal is to inform families right up front, shop around. nyu is a unique place. our value proposition is different than every other institution in the country. we have a global network of campuses. we are in -- i am biased, but the greatest city. we are in greenwich village. we have a world-class faculty. i believe there is a value proposition that is different than other institutions. we are a fabulous place, but we are not the only fabulous place. our message to students from prospect on is about what are you looking for in an

institution, what are you looking for in a program? and remember, about half the freshmen who begin this fall will change their major at least once. what are you looking for in a program? small, large, internship opportunities, faculty? one thing to consider should be the financial investment, not just the first year, but across four or five years. families will cobble together a package, a financial package, that will get through the first year, and then they find themselves in real difficulty. our goal is not to scare people away, and not to be the latest. we are working hard to get the limited amount of financial aid we have to the right students. we're completely need based. i could count on one hand the number of merit scholarships

that are not need based. we are telling families, consider these factors. do not ignore the financial investment. i meet with a lot of families, and they are wonderful people, but the first thing they say to me is i have wanted to come to nyu since i was four. what could you really know about the university when you are four? you might know that you like new york city or that alec baldwin came here. but it is important to consider the financial aspect. >> is that something you are stressing more now than you were a few years ago? >> it is. there were families coming to nyu that did not have the financial resources to be there, and we were not in a

position to provide the resources to allow them to stay. i do not want to sound like we are an elitist institution telling poor kids not to come, but for families thinking about the future, you have to think about the impact this will have in the long term. the other aspect is examining how we invest the budget we have. that is my responsibility. we have made some major changes in how we are awarding financial aid and how we are assessing the financial resources of families. that has been a gain changer for us. we have fundamentally changed how we are awarding lower and

middle-income families financial aid. >> you were saying the college debt is good compared to credit card debt. >> with a qualifier, but yes. >> the major qualifier for that would be that you graduate, that you end up with a degree, that the college that is not a cliff you never end up completing. especially non-traditional students, some are in the single digits after six years. what is the responsibility of the school to help people get to a degree?

i know at a place like nyu, do you expect lots of transfer students, for instance, so that people could do community college and then graduate with an nyu degree? i do not know if any of you have opinions on getting students to graduation and who is there to pick up the pieces when things go wrong in the process. >> i can just say that one thing is -- there is actually surprisingly little research on why people default. we did a study this summer which had a very small survey sample, but is shockingly one of the few where it surveyed people who were talked into borrowing

and asked them what happened. completing is not necessarily going to lead to success. there are some factors, largely in the for-profit sector to some extent, where completion does not lead to financial success necessarily, but in general, completion is important. there are a number of ways across the board that we can do a better job at this. there are some federal and state government requirements to have more information out there about completion rates and other information about schools. information alone, disclosures

alone, in my opinion, are never enough of a consumer protection policy, but they are certainly helpful to some extent. having a consistent way to measure completion is important too. people being able to compare apples to apples is important. two different outcome measures is important. many of you may know that the obama administration tried to start doing that, mostly in the for-profit sector, but not exclusively, and has had a lot of opposition over that. i think we will see more efforts coming in the next four years. the last thing i would say is what i said earlier, which is

that for people who do not complete, knowing that this is a factor that leads to default, that we do not make that the final sentence for everybody. let's make it easier for people to transition out of default, to prevent them from getting into default in the first place. the best way to solve the problem is to help people and of succeeding. if you have better completion rates, you have your people in the problem in the first place. >> the key is getting the student who starts to the finish line. the focus on completion rates has a new ones to it.

-- nuance to it. one of the easiest ways for college to have good completion rates is to deny admission to high risk students. we need to remove the obstacles that keep students from completing their education. i do not think community colleges are the solution. community colleges are great if you are seeking an associate's degree. but of those who starred at a two-year institution, 20% graduate with a bachelor's degree from an institution where you go for years. two-thirds who starred at the four-year institution finish there. to the extent they are relying

on debt to make college more affordable, they need the evidence to back it up. if the students were to hear that two-thirds of the students from this college or going to graduate or drop out with more debt than they can afford to pay, they might walk to a college that is less problematic on equal measure. but what is needed is not just federal disclosure of affordability. the financial aid shopping sheet is a step in the right direction, but better disclosures are not enough when students and their parents do

not have the skills to interpret these disclosures. a better financial literacy needs to be taught in the secondary school curriculum. it is not as to the making smarter borrowing decisions, it is also about helping them be more successful. it is a guide to being a grown- up so that you know how to save for a house, prepare for children, save for retirement, save for your children's education. nobody teaches them that and they need to know that so they can make informed decisions. they need those skills. >> i was just going to add that

i do think at the department of education level they are trying to push the consumer information angle and to have colleges have those tough conversations without the department having to come down and actually put a hard income limit on something like a parent plus loan. they want that to happen on the counseling level. when i talk to financial aid administrators, they are conflicted about it sometimes. who am i? is it my schools place to say that this is too much money to borrow? >> i would be happy to speak to that. there was an article right after that expressed that specifically. counselors are not financial advisers. we do not know what the financial resources are. we know that they have additional information out

there. it is our policy that we are not doing any financial adviser in. this is a loan, you have to repay loans. we are not qualified, nor should we be making decisions for families and telling them that should not come here because you cannot afford to be here. in part because we do not really know that. i have had lots of conversations where i have said, you need to consider carefully what this will be long term. there are other options on the table that will not result in the kind of debt you are going to have been coming to nyu. short of saying you should not come to nyu, island and dick think carefully about where they should be.

-- i want them to think carefully about where they should be. let's take the debt piece out of it. let's talk about completion. who should have the opportunity to give this a try? who should have the opportunity to see whether they are able to do college work? my ph.d. is in measurement theory and statistics. i understand, i had better, i understand status be standardiz. we make decisions based on a set of characteristics. but we're not perfect. there are definitely students -- our admission rate is only 33%. there are lots of students who could succeed at nyu that we deny, they're going to other wonder for colleges and universities. what about the student who comes from an urban school district where the guidance counselor has 600 students?

they're not getting any good school counseling and advising. should they not have an opportunity to attend college? for many of them, in my humble opinion, their first opportunity is whether they enroll in a community college. if they are not doing the work and borrowing, they are saddled with loan debt. there is a much better -- bigger issue in terms of -- i am glad mark mentioned the secondary schools. there are huge issues, especially in large urban school districts, related to families getting good information, related to solving a lot of these issues. in terms of helping students and families might be. it is not a snap your fingers

decision. many school districts a very strapped in terms of resources. retention strategies and colleges and universities, which are critically important -- how we start the conversation early enough that families and students understand the expectation so they can be college ready by the time they graduate. it is a much more complicated issue than just to defaults and who does not. >> a perfect segue into what i want to talk about next -- the role of government in all this. the goal was to talk about how schools and how families and advocates and the government can do a better job helping alleviate this issue for families. the government -- one role of the government has is in the public school system. we touched on that briefly. one aspect is the number of students from large, not lower

performing districts. the number of students to get to college and graduate with a high-school diploma and get to college and need remedial work. they use a lot of their loans taking high-school class is and suddenly finish their remedial work and they are in debt. that is a big issue with nyc, between the department of education. that is one of the huge problems. we also briefly touched on the federal government's role in terms of regulating the whole process and how right now the push seems to be for disclosure and more information out there to help people be better consumers. the third big issue is what mark mentioned briefly in the beginning -- the state and city universities have been defunded

in a way over decades. that is part of the rising tuition costs c.c. at the public university level. -- you see at the private eat -- public university level. every time there's a financial crisis, they cut university's first and never take that back. after 30 years we have had tuition rates go way up. or classes get really large. in terms of the government, all those different roles that they play in this -- how much of this is really a schematic problem that the private sector and the individual families are not as much to blame for as the system's working against them? >> plenty of blame to go around. [laughter] we have a pipeline from kindergarten or before kindergarten all the way through graduate school. it leaks at every stage of the pipeline. some of the graduates with no debt is quite as likely to go on

to graduate school as somebody who goes on with no debt. every $10,000 of additional debt, that individual is 6% less likely to go into a public service job. the debt is having an effect on people's choices, like it or not. and the government is responsible for -- there are two parts of the equation. the failure to keep pace with increases in college costs. colleges and states are responsible for the increase of costs. the government is also responsible for the failure of the grants. one side would like to blame the grants, would like to blame the costs, but i think it is both parts. it is a very interesting aspect -- the pell grant used to be even with the loans. students on average had as much grant and loan. now it is completely skewed toward the loans. i have been a strong proponent for tripling the bob grant so that we would have a $10,000 or

$15,000 pell grant. that would lead to hundreds of thousands of additional bachelor's degree recipients. the pell grant pays for itself in a decade. somebody with a bachelor's degree plays more than -- pays more than twice the federal income tax of a person with a high-school diploma. just a federal income-tax, that pays for the grant in a decade. half of students are non- traditional students, but the half that are traditional students, they have a typical 40-year work life. you have 10 years to pay back the government for the cost of the grant, and 30 years of pure profit for the pro-government. it is a 14% return on investment. nontraditional students were older, it is not as much of an advantage to the federal government, but there is still a financial return to the federal government. we should stop thinking about this as being a personal benefit

to the student, but as a benefit also to the government. besides just financial, there are all sorts of good that flow from ira education, whether it is lower crime rate, healthier, more civic participation, more likely to vote. there is a lot of good that stems from a college education. as a society we should be putting the highest possible priority on this and not the lowest possible priority. the states, the first place they cut, federal government. not even in the top-10 parties for the federal budget. ow.get what we s we should think about where we want our society to be in a few decades or if you hundred years. the way to do that for an ever improving society is improving education, not cutting the one thing that is a real investment in the future. >> another thing i would say,

and i am sure market something to add to this, -- i will give you an idea from the parent plus an situation. if you are declined, fill the credit check, you get $5,000 extra loans in the student name. i hear this from financial aid administrators -- a lot people are applying to these loans will be to get the knights of they can get the extra $5,000 because that is what they need -- hoping to get denied so they can get the extra $5,000 because that is what they need. it is a weird thing -- somebody is applying for a loan program open to get the night so they can have some extra money in their own name. -- denied so they can get some extra money in their own name. if that is all they need in their own name, should the loan limits be reconsidered? , ise up increasing grants that something the federal government could or should

consider? the other thing, most federal student loans, most student borrowing, is happening through the federal government now. we have not gotten too much into the private loan conversation, which we could, but you have loan several t-- federal servicers handling all this loan revenue. the system is just not -- the communication breakdown between the borrowers and between servicers and the lenders, it resembles the mortgage market, where people fall on hard times and need a little more flexibility and the amount of paperwork and bureaucracy that stands in the way of relief is something that i think the federal government could and probably should take a more active role in overseeing.

>> to pick up on that, unfortunately i spend a lot of time banging my head against the wall with the department of education. it has huge costs. the administration of the programs themselves is a very important topic. i would say that, getting back to what i said originally, if the goal of federal aid really is about social mobility and access to higher education, then i think we have to realize that the government policy particularly in an era of limited budget is going to have to be targeted more that way. it is -- talking about need a state, not necessarily about choice, that everybody gets to go where they want -- there are ways to have the aid be more targeted. i think maybe having a conversation about whether

higher education should be necessarily the driver of mobility in this country -- a lot of people, and i am not an expert on this at all. i deal with people who are already in trouble and tried to help them as best i can. the idea that there could be alternatives to college that could lead to a decent paying jobs -- there has been a cheapening of the credentials and, where people have to have a college credential for certain entry jobs. that has unfortunately impacted lower income individuals as well. but that is an important conversation. it is now the main driver of mobility. accepting that premise, that we should have the aid targeted more that way is the first thing. the second thing is, again, giving people a break on the back end like i have been talking about is not just about cutting back on some of the draconian collection policies,

not having so much profit go to collectors and that sort of thing, but also making sure that the programs that are out there to help people actually work. that is a government accountability issue. it has not really -- it has got attention in a polarized way -- government is good or government is bad. it is somewhere in between. my experience working with the people at the department of education, and again, i work with them all the time, is that for the most part intentions are good. people are actually thinking that they are doing what is right for borrowers, at least from a lot of the government contractors. but there is an incredible level of incompetency and so many people are not getting the options they are entitled to and that is leading to more trouble.

when you get to the other side, intentions' comment. there's a whole system that drives the ball toward more profit. we can have a whole conversation about the role of higher education in the first place, but it is what it is right now. we are denying so many people the benefits of it. >> the example given earlier about a parent who has $10,000 of income and $30,000 of loan debt -- a three to one ratio, either they are not aware of what that all means or they are expecting the child to be paying back the loan. i think what we should do is get rid of the parent plus loan with its unlimited limits, and instead have a rational set of limits on the student loans such as based on the degree level that in turn will specify what the likely income is going to be

for the average income plus 10%. based the loan limits on that, then annual limits will be proportional based on the length of the degree program. also the enrollment. a halftime enrolled students should not be able to borrow full-time loan limits. i think we do need to do more on the back end. i know you agree with this. we need to have bankruptcy discharge available to students of both federal and private student loans. we need to restore a statute of limitations on the student loans. i have seen many examples in which the loan records are just computer printouts and there is no copy of the promissory note and the student claims they have paid off in full and the lender denies it. a. he sh he said, she said. rec 31 support hard to come by. the botswana -- records from 31

years are hard to come by. one senior citizen said they could not repay the loans because they were incarcerated at the time. proving that he does not allow the loans, he has to not only under the forgery roles state that somebody else forged his signature, but he has to -- that person has to have been prosecuted fo one of these false certification -- for him to get one of these falsification discharges. so i think we knedo need to have more on the back end, but also more on the front end. >> quickly, i have a case right now with a number of borrowers who were signed up while they were incarcerated, but that is another story. problems occur at that end as well. >> i am and framing a bit what has been said.

in terms of state and federal support, we have really moved over the last few decades from a model that says that education was a public good to a model that says education is a private good. the public good model states -- the federal government funded most of it. the private model, it is a benefit to individuals so individuals should fund it. other folks have characterized why it is still an incredible public good. having worked if flagship public in the early 1970's at this institution -- 73% of the operating budget came from the state. many flagship universities have been devastated in terms of their budgets, and they have to find other ways to generate revenue. often that is an increase in price. as cost goes up, price goes up or subsidy has to go up. if cost is going up and subsidy is going down, price has to go up.

we could argue at what level, but -- >> and that has a chilling effect on enrollment by low- income students. >> i would throw out another level. mark's comments about setting loan limits based on potential -- earning potential -- makes some sense, but we know that students, and i agree with what a lot of markets saying. a lot of students change their mind. you could be premed in your first semester and decide you are going to be a journalism major in your second. >> or a civil engineer. >> i started engineering. then at statistics. there has to be some method by which we are limiting loans, but -- this is not a novel idea, so i'm not taking credit for it. if i were king, which i'm not. that is probably a good thing. i would put all of the programs in one pile.

everyone would get a loan. repayment would be income based. there are all kinds of potential problems with this model that would need to be worked out, but the u.k. just implemented this model a year ago. i happened to be in london when they did -- there were riots in the streets. students were amazingly concerned about the potential outcome, but as they fell through it, it is a much more equitable model. politically, it will be incredibly difficult, but the problem with doing anything up front is we do not know what someone's earning potential is one to be until they are earning. any model we put in place of front will have to have lots of adjustments made. not that we could not figure that out, but i really think that making it all loan based on having the loans repaid based income and a set of rules that would keep people from gaining the system is a much

better model than trying to plug the holes. it also addresses the up front issues with students who are really for the first time that they are able to assess whether or not they are prepared to do college level work is in a community college, and a secure the loan debt. if we base the repayment on their income, if that experience does not influence their income they are off the hook. the model has to work and the funding has to work, but i am not an economist so i would not figure that out with your net fifth if -- ight with th low-income suit are risk averse.

income based repayment plan -- they are less likely to pursue a repayment plan. in our current system we anticipate recipients -- a graduate on average with $3,000 of more debt than students who do not receive the grant. we are burdening those who are least capable of paying debt with the most debt. the problem with such an income contingent repayment system is going to be that you are going to impact access. >> to that point -- a lot that is about contcommunicating what that actually means. we have a lot of eligible kids

who are borrowing well beyond their family's capability to repay, banking on the fact it will at some point be -- be able to repay the loans. i think it has huge potential. i believed it would be more advantageous for mlow-income families. >> i want to move on to questions from the audience. i want to get as many as possible. what is interesting that has come out of this so far seems to be that there are a lot of changes that could be made. a lot of them would take political will that we do not seem to think necessarily exists right now. a lot of them have to do with education in terms of if the reality is as it is, having people understand it as well as possible -- that makes events like to night so important. questions from the audience, the

first caddy at is making sure it is a question, not a statement. trying to have it be as quick as possible. the phrasing of a. you can directed to anyone in particular or small. we will try to have our answers be as quick and robust. is there anybody who has any questions? >> i have a couple questions. one is, maybe predator is not the right word, but the financial agents who can take advantage of the availability of student loans -- wonder if this has been a problem in the system? bankruptcy is -- there is no credit check. it looks like a deal, then -- i wonder if in fact those people are out there. there are other universities on

tv and stuff or over the internet -- if they are selling loans at the same rate, i wonder if that is not somehow a little bit bad? the other question is whether a partial answer for the long term solution is really in the community colleges, and whether institutions like nyu may need to keep a berth open for people who have in fact proven their ability at the community college level in the future. >> we have not gotten into the issue -- a lot has been focused on for profit. we mentioned very briefly for- profit universities, people getting over their heads for degrees that are almost worthless or they have been convinced to take on a huge amount of debt. the city of new york has recently started an advertising campaign trying to enter iraq -- counteract what you see, saying, do your research, make sure you are not buying expensive degree. that is an important piece of

the issue. >> a couple points on the predator peaceice. if there is one point in my legal career, it has been that some of the predators in this industry -- i started in california back in the 1990's -- there were a lot of for- profit schools back then that were actually completed ripoffs. there's a whole slew of stories i can tell you about those. that whole industry has evolved to much more publicly funded companies now, much larger companies, investor based companies. those, for example, my clients, about two-thirds or 70% of my clients have attended for-profit schools. that is the creditors will aspect of it, which is a serious

problem. there is predator lending or predatory lending aspect of the for-profit school as well as some of them more recently have said -- started to make their loans,stitutional lown knowing full well that very few of them will repay them. they have rite operates a 70%, a lot of them. -- a write-off rates of 70%, a lot of them. in the student lending world, what you have is the federal loan program, which is what we have been talking about almost exclusively tonight. but those actually, it is not really a predator situation. it is the issue of accountability, who gets to participate in the programs in the first place. the lending itself is now done by the government and the terms are regulated by the government, whereas there was a very large,

thriving subprime predatory student lending private market for a number of years. there was -- similar to the mortgage, unfortunately a lot of the subprime mortgages, the subprime part of the private student lending industry basically crash. third-party private student loan market -- it has not bounced back. to the extent it has, it is a much more responsible london market for the most part. that is the predatory side of things. it is a really important question, because when we look at all the things we talked about now, in particular if we look at these ways of limiting the loans from the government, who is going to come in again and fill in that gap? in the past it has been some of the predatory players. >> private student loans -- the

percentage of students with private student loans and the average amount per student of private student loans has increased with increasing college costs. a more expensive colleges much more likely to have 25% or 1/3 of their students borrowing from private loans. students getting over their heads -- the cost of college-the grants and the price of the institution. for-profit colleges -- there are some good ones, some bad ones, and some very bad ones. i like the gainful employment rolls of the federal government proposed that have been temporarily suspended by a court case, which i expected. ultimately they will be resurrected. the rules are essentially affordable debt restrictions. what is the discretionary income ratio? what percentage of students are actively repaint loans a few years after graduation, and setting limits on those so that

the colleges generating that the students aren't capable of repaying maybe it should not be eligible for federal aid. the laws will apply to the non- profit and public colleges. due to the statutory definition, it is only the for-profit colleges and non the greaser to begin programs at the traditional colleges. -- non degree certificate programs at the traditional college. it will at least begin to provide a real indication to students about what is and is not a affordable college education. part of the problem with the four top colleges -- 95% of the students graduate with that. they often graduate with as much debt as a private nonprofit college. it is not necessarily as good of education, but they are certainly graduating with the debt of that education.

that is a trigger for the problems. >> talking about at actors, back in the heyday of the private student lending market. you saw a lot of families who were not necessarily going to for-profit colleges. they're going to a music school. i wrote an article about a gardener who sent his son to college, the first in the family to go to college. the dad made about $21,000 a year. that was family income. he was able to borrow six figures may private lender for his son. there was no underwriting. this slender, by the way, saddled with the new york attorney general about this because -- i do not know if you remember, it was called the preferred lender list, where lenders were in some cases accused of paying schools for preferential treatment and for

them to steer students toward a particular loan product. that was the case with this lender. when you think about -- you can sort of understand some of the anger and highly generation of students may rightly feel very do in some ways and with very little relief now that they are so far in. dect. bt. >> we made about 800 transfer students a year. no distinction -- as long as they have done rigorous work and done well. we have relationships with a number of community colleges where we look to enroll students from those community college's. >> do you know what the breakdown is of those 800? >> i do not know off the top of my head, but the majority would before year institutions. that is only because -- would be

four-year institutions. >> next? >> thank you. this has been a great job. the question was underwriting and also the bankruptcy laws that are -- are a big deal right now. if we were to take the law out and said student loans are allowed to be thrown out in bankruptcy, how would that affect the current student loan market? do we have to somehow cut people off? will there be issues where we have to say no. the federal them program will guarantee loans for anybody, but that is because they know there is a guarantee they will get the loan payback. they -- loan paid back. they will get it paid back because they cannot discharge it in bankruptcy. if we remove that, how can we continue to guarantee loans to

every single person without a credit check for measuring their ability to repay? would the schools be interested in getting, standing behind their product? what i mean by that, if a student were to default on their loan, would the school step up and pay that loan back since they admitted that student and since they took their revenue to pay for whatever their institution cost? would they pay that loan back to the students were to default? >> it would result in higher tuition. the schools do not necessarily, except for maybe 600 of them, have any substantial endowment. consequence of restoring bankruptcy discharge would be that people who are in over their head would have an option, light at the end of the tunnel, that would force the lenders to offer more compromises since they know that the alternative is losing that loan entirely to

a bankruptcy discharge. they might be more willing to offer compromises. they would tighten the credit underwriting or they would increase -- decrease the fees that they charge. the spread is 20 to 30 basis points based on the likely amount of bankruptcy discharge. that is not a lot. they would still be lending to a lot people. right now, the average score of somebody with a private student loan is around 787. it will not make it that much worse. the private student loans already are not being lent to high-risk individuals. there needs to be some sanity in the system. you should not be lending $57,000, which is the aggregate limit for an independent student, for somebody getting a certificate or associate's

degree. there is absolutely no way that individual is going to be able to pay that back. what we should be doing everyone that individual to still pursue that education, we should be giving them more money in the form of grants and not in the form of loans. there needs to be in balance. you need to have rational loan limits, but you also need to have much more government grant investment in our greatest resource, which is our people. >> a couple of quick things about bankruptcy. first, student loans can be discharged in bankruptcy, it is just extremely difficult. there are parts of systems -- one point. -- card ship systems, one point. you can look at what the limit would be -- the discharge ability has not been around forever. private loans of only been since 2005. there are not as many studies as there should be. you can find it out there, to

show that pricing did not change that much. there was not a lot of change in rates and all those things based on bankruptcy policy. in terms of lender behavior, frankly the landers right now are underwriting more and acting more responsible because the market crashed. the market did not to scratch because of some random -- not just crash because of some random event, but because of very irresponsible policies. on the federal government, until 1998 the, there has been an evolution of bankruptcy policy, but federal loans used to the discharge of oil in bankruptcy. there was a time limit and then it got to be undue hardship to the system. the idea that students were running out there fighting for bankruptcy in numbers nobody had seen, that is not proven either. it is anecdotal information.

i think that actually we can look at the history -- we do need to have some relief, particularly for the private student loan borrowers. they really have to mandate relief. we restore -- support restoring bankruptcy rights for federal loan borrowers. >> the consumer financial protection bureau has limited the idea of making private loans to start the ball, but that is not a conversation when it comes to the federal -- >> congress should consider, not that congress should. >> we are going to take t a question towitter. from twitter. i think the more important question to ask, why use student loans to fund higher ed at all? >> student loans are cheaper than grants. is financial.

>> i do not know in which direction -- our conversation earlier, especially that it is a public good and if we're really focusing on public institutions in this instance -- if they are defunding the state and city institution and then having to provide more loans, would that be another solution to fund at least public institutions so you could have a free college experience? >> if you make public college free, you just have to have $200 billion. where will that money come from ? there is only one source that has that -- federal and state governments combined. right now they do not have that as a priority. >> when you look at state budgets, there are lots of articles written about this -- health care increases, fuel

had become aesentisons much higher priority. >> is cheaper to educate somebody then imprisoned and. >> i am not saying it is the right priority. [laughter] >> this issue is really very interesting to me. i think it is the heart of the matter. you talk about working at a public university that used to be funded 73% by the state and is now funded 7%. when you talked out of the general public -- members of state legislature or congress, and to advance arguments for why education should be funded so that it is close to free so that people actually have social mobility, what arguments to find are effective, and what do you find are effected?

>> if you look of the track record i do not find any of them have been especially effective. i do not want to keep coming back to this, but it is almost the squeaky wheel and where the dollars have to go. institutions have found a way to generate more revenue. the burden has been placed on revenues. families. when i was a freshman in the associate degree program, my stafford loan covered room, board, and tuition. as institutions have been defunded and costs have increased the grants have not in any way shape perform kept pace with those increases. again, it becomes funding based on politics. behind closed doors i think a lot of legislators agree that we should be doing a better job of funding education, but when push comes to shove do you -- again, i am not saying we should do this, but when you have people and are building a prison, you

have people you are going to incarcerate, or you can cut from an education budget and trust that schools will find a way to make that up -- the decision has been made to find something else. i do not know what the answer is other than a groundswell of support for funding education. not just higher education, certainly k-12. >> it was successful in california. proposition 30 past, which substituted increase in taxes for a tuition hike. it came after a tuition hike -- you can only put people so far. >> let me ask you this -- the think part of the problem is the perception that there is a lot of waste in our education so that there is too much government, public money would go into the educational institutions? >> sometimes it is used as a

reason, but when you look at -- you can pretty easily show this -- when you look at increasing costs of colleges and universities, again, people who are defining their discipline. those people come with a salary, and they expect a salary increase every year. health care and fuel costs have escalated. sometimes, and there are some institutions that are less efficient than others. i do not want to hold us up as the epitome of efficiency, but we are pretty efficient. we cut our administrative cost support resources and personnel by 20% over the last 20 years because we are working really hard to be as efficient as the candy. that does not -- as we can be. that does not account for the 70% of a lack of public university by any means pizza it goes to a feast and famine cycle --.

>> -- you have unemployment as a lagging indicator, meaning tax revenues are down and states have to have balanced budgets. the first thing they support his post secondary education in appropriations and direct grants. they then have three main approaches -- one is to raise tuition, the other is to shift to out of state and international students, which makes them serve the students of the state last, but it ships the revenue base toward a higher average tuition. or they reduce their enrollments. if you have a smaller pie, you shrink the enrollment to match the size of the pie. i do not see any magic bullet to fixing this. the argument that it is going to increase state income tax revenue -- is appreciated. in illinois the floated an idea based on it, but it has not been successful.

the first place that politicians will blame is the colleges for raising tuition, even when it is not the college's fall. >> is it an issue of services that they can cut services or certain degrees that are more expensive, even if they are more needed? the amazing example of the nursing degree being so expensive, so states that have nursing crises and need more nurses cannot. they have waitlists the people who want to get their degree -- they cannot provide that because they do not have the money and class are more expensive. >> my brother is the directory of a nursing program. it is very intensive. the typical member has eight to 10 students. it is more expensive. even though there is a lot of demand for the graduates, the graduates are all employed, but the school has to cut somewhere and they cut his program. >> the key is -- what influence do those cuts have? typically it affects quality.

it affects quality of services and the overall quality of the educational experience. when people talk about making cuts, again, a huge disparity across institutions, but we have to be very concerned about how it affects quality, the quality students have. the other piece, philanthropy has become a huge components of revenue generation for colleges and universities. especially flagship publics have come into the arena very late. institutions that have $3 billion operating budgets, might have $1 billion of endowment to of subsidize the loss of state funding. it is not enough, certainly, to make up the difference, but that has been an important part of what institutions are doing. >> we have time for one more -- if anybody?

>> the question is for anybody who wants to answer it. what if anything do we expect in terms of movement in this area from obama's second term? >> i think we saw -- we still have split control of congress. there is a limit to what he can do on his own. he'll try to use the regulatory process and executive authority like he did with the fast tracking of the new income based repayment plan to do what he can, but he cannot appropriate money, only congress can. i think there are some things that members of congress of both parties can agree with. first of all, improving disclosure does not cost any money, or very little money. that is likely to be favored by both sides. reauthorization of the higher education act, theoretically, is going to occur in 2013. it might not happen on time. an automatic one-year extension -- look of the last reauthorization which was

supposed to happen in 2003, 13 extension bills. i hope it does not take that long this time around. there will be a lot of proposals for major changes during reauthorization. they might redesign the student loan programs. the interest rate -- they might redesign the grant programs. they might cut some programs, at new programs. a lot can happen next year that is worth paying attention to and commenting on and putting out -- if you have a good idea, telling to your member of congress. >> two other things. on the department of education side think they will work on ess, and hope we do a better job with the servicers reining in the problems. it is important that they have been hearing about this problem so much. that is one thing that does not

require congressional action. another thing is the consumer financial protection bureau is sort of the new game in town as far as this goes. people do not think of them as a federal student loan side, they primarily have jurisdiction over private student loans. there will be quite active, talking about some of the predatory practices, but even on the federal student loan side the consumer financial protection bureau has jurisdiction over debt collectors and some of the servicers. it is not the biggest picture issues we have been talking about so much, but on the ground for people right now who have already borrowed, clients like mine having the existing programs that work well, it is incredibly important. hopefully a lot is going to happen in that area. >> the cfbp is the new sheriff in town. >> i will add that president obama said a lot on the campaign trail that he wanted to tie ability aid to college's

to keep costs down. we have not seen specifics on that. it will be interesting. something to watch to see if he actually does that. >> we have seen some specifics from the prior version of that proposal. the students aid and fiscal responsibility act, which passed the house, but provisions were dropped from the bill. eventually became the health care and education reconciliation act. campus based funding -- the perkins loan, the grant, a federal work study -- tying it to a college's success in keeping tuition from growing too quickly. also this success in in rowling pal grant recipients. the final proposal -- enrolling pell grant recipients. the final proposal will be different, but president obama said he wanted to expand the

perkins loan program. two about exactly the same size as the private student loan market place. it is perhaps intended to wipe out private student loans. also to double the number of federal work study programs over a five-year period. a college possibility to get that increase aid would be tied to their ability to keep tuition increases under control. >> then there is always the possibility of more dream act. we talk about how bad these loans can be. some people have had no access to them. i feel that is a big potential. anything else? any panelist stacks we touched about some of this, and yet there is so much more. there are all sections of this we have not even gotten to or that we mentioned in passing at some point. i guess that is for a future conversation. thank you all so much for coming.