In today’s webinar unveiling the National Conversation Initiative’s recommendations, I introduced the NCI this way:

It has been one year since the NASFAA Board of Directors, reacting to Dr. Day’s enthusiasm, foresight and recommendations, unanimously approved moving forward on National Conversation Initiative.  Make no mistake, this is a “game changer” for NASFAA and places NASFAA once again in the forefront as the national leader in defining financial aid policy and providing the necessary training opportunities for the nations’ students and the financial aid profession to be successful. The National Conversation Initiative clearly places financial aid professionals across this country in the position to Lead rather than Follow in the important financial aid policy discussions and decisions ahead for this nation.

In just seven short months, NASFAA has performed what I view as a minor miracle in developing the thirty recommendations.  NASFAA has tapped into the wealth of experience, know-how, and commitment reflected in our membership – the professionals who know best about what needs to be done to improve the current system of Student Aid in this country.  Special thanks to the NASFAA Board of Directors who spent considerable time and provided detailed input into the review of the document you see before you.  Also, words cannot express my appreciation for the tireless dedication of the NASFAA staff in synthesizing and distilling nearly 5,000 pieces of data inputs in such a short period of time to produce this document.

Please understand that while this appears to be the end of a process, it really represents only the beginning of a continuing dialog as those of us committed to access and choice for the nation’s students will continue to discuss and refine these recommendations over the next few years.

So, how do you react to the NCI recommendations?  Do you see this as a watershed event for NASFAA?  Please give NASFAA your reactions and continued input as the NCI moves forward into the NCI process’ third and fourth stages.

Those of you old enough to remember Janis Joplin and Big Brother and the Holding Company, may remember their second album released in 1968 entitled Cheap Thrills.  In 1968 the album was the number one album in sales (one million) and contained the classic Piece of My Heart.  As was the case with most rock bands in that era, they were a tad outrageous as demonstrated by the original cover of the album showing the band naked in bed together and the original title of Sex, Dope and Cheap Thrills – both which Columbia Records was uncomfortable with and had changed.  The final album cover was done by underground cartoonist, Robert Crumb, and it is a classic.

All of this was brought to mind (you can see how addled my mind has become) by a recent proposal for a ‘no frills’ university in Pennsylvania (no frills means no thrills?).  The proposed school (put forth by the Pennsylvania Board of Education and recommended to the Governor and Legislature) would have no residence halls, no athletic teams and, I assume, few student services.  While the proposal was geared toward adult learners, others see it as a model in that may be used for traditionally-aged students, as well.  Such a campus would, no doubt, have lower costs and, especially, lower fees.  This sounds suspiciously like the original concept for community colleges and for the ‘for profit’ schools like the University of Phoenix (who, for some reason has a state of the art football stadium, but no team).

So, how do you react to this proposal?  What do students give up by attending a no frills campus?  Is what they give up the same for non-traditional students as for traditionally-aged students?  Is this a concept whose time has come?  I look forward to reading your views.

Webster’s defines stimulate as “to excite as if with a goad to action, as to stimulate one by the hope of reward.” Positive synonyms are - to animate, encourage, and urge. More negative synonyms are - incite, instigate, exasperate and to incense. So which is it? Will the $800 billion dollar stimulus encourage or incense?

A guest commentary in last week’s Chicago Sun-Times written by Rev. Jesse Jackson asks an interesting question - If banks can borrow at a 1% interest rate, why not students? Jackson’s proposal highlights the fact that nearly everyone has their own take on how best to spend the $800 billion stimulus. Most of us in higher education are pleased that the stimulus package will increase Federal Pell Grants spending. But, will this increase in Pell Grants alone provide the resources to eliminate our students’ financial needs?

Most of us employed in higher education believe that a significant investment in education is one way to meet the current and future demands placed on our economy and society. This may be considered self-serving. But, if I can get a 0% loan to buy a car in today’s market, does it make sense to continue to charge students (and parents) interest rates of 5% or more?

Now it’s your turn. Are 1% college loans a good way to make college more affordable? It this the best way to help students and families overcome the deepening recession and rising cost of higher education? Is it an efficient use of taxpayer money? What about students who have borrowed at higher interest rates? What about loan limits? Should limits be reconsidered? I look forward to reading your opinions.