Panel Urges New Student Loan Scheme

A White House panel -- including a professor of Mathematics form Harvard -- has drawn up a new college-loan plan that would require students earning large incomes after graduation to repay more than those earning less.

The panel proposes that for each $4000 a student borrows while in college he should be charged one per cent of his yearly income for 40 years after his graduation.

Thus, a student who borrows $4000 while in college and who earns a stady $10,000 every year would be charged one per cent -- $100 -- every year for 40 years. At the end of his obligation he would have repaid exactly the amount of the loan.

But a yearly income less than $10,000 would result in repayment of an amount less than the original loan. A graduate earning $7000 per year would pay back a total of $2800.

Similarly, for identical student loans, those who earn $30,000 after graduation would repay three times as much as those who earn $10,000.

A plan tying repayment to income could become enormously expensive for graduates with very large incomes, so the panel has provided for an escape route from the 40-year obligation. At any time, the student could repay the entire amount of his loan if he also paid commercial interest rates on the money he has borrowed. Andrew M. Gleason, professor of Mathematics and one of the panel's members, said that commercial rates would be about six per cent.

A student who had borrowed $4000 and who obtained a job paying, say $15,000 the year after he graduated might wish to avoid a 40 year commitment that would take a substantial portion of his income each year; he could elect to repay at once the entire $4000 plus six per cent interest.

Gleason said yesterday that the panel will probably not present its report to the White House until September, but he said that preliminary reactions were "fairly favorable." He added that the plan, which would have to receive Congressional approval, could not conceivably go into effect for two to three years.

If the plan were instituted there would be one other major change from present college-loan plans besides the flexible repayment scheme. The panel would like to make loans available to every student without regard to his family's income. Current loan plans require a student to show that his family's income is below a certain level in order to qualify.

Gleason said that the amount of money any student could receive would depend on the costs of his particular college. The maximum loan would probably equal the cost of tuition, room, board, and other expenses, Gleason said.

At present, there are three different ways a college student can borrow money. At Harvard, for example, a student can obtain a loan directly from the University, from the University's supply of federal National Defense Education Act (NDEA) funds, or through the Guaranteed Insured Loan Plan (GILP).

But about a year ago the President attempted to phase out the NDEA plan and to replace it with GILP. Under GILP, students borrow money directly from banks; under NDEA they borrow funds from the federal government which were channeled through the college. To increase the banks' willingness to cooperate with GILP, the federal government guarantees each loan and pays part of the interest for borrowers whose families earn less than $15,000 per year.

This attempted phasing out of NDEA--largely motivated by a desire to reduce the federal budget to compensate for defense spending -- was greeted with howls of protest form colleges all over the country. Many of the colleges had already commited themselves to loans in the expectation of receiving NDEA money. In addition, there were numerous criticisms of the proposed alternative -- GILP.

GILP, its critics argued, placed the student who needed a loan at the mercy of his banker. Even though the government would guarantee the loan, no lending institution would be required to participate, and there was fear that the new plan might seriously victimize Negroes in the South. Furthermore, restrictive monetary practices by the federal government could also have a substantial effect on the national money market -- and therefore the student's chances for obtaining a loan.

In response to these criticisms, the White House launched a thorough study of the question of college loans, and delayed the killing of NDEA. As a result, some colleges -- Harvard, for example -- have never had it so good. GILP has worked out better than many critics expected and the NDEA program is still supplying a substantial amount of money to students