by Jeff Sovern
Brian posted a link over the weekend to the excellent Times article on student loans. Here's one part that really caught my eye:
A quick reading of an award letter from Drexel University, received by a New Jersey applicant in March, implied that the student would owe nothing and might actually walk away with money. The expected payment to Drexel, it said in highlighted bright yellow, would be a negative $5,900. The calculation presumed grants, student loans and a $42,120 loan taken out by the parents toward the $63,620 estimated cost — figures also included in the letter but not highlighted.
In other words, if your parents borrow $5,900 more than you need to pay Drexel, you will have $5,900 more than you have to pay Drexel. The article continues:
A Drexel spokeswoman said that the letter was not misleading and that it had not received complaints about it.
If they didn't intend to mislead, why did they highlight the parts that they did? Of course, we don't have the text of the letter to read, but this certainly sounds reminiscent of predatory lending.
I want plenty of articles and blogs please upload shortly.
http://www.paydayloan-fast.info/?page_id=12
Posted by: Sir King | Tuesday, August 07, 2012 at 01:22 AM