東華大學圖書館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

登入

回首頁

切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

FFELP or direct lending: A compariso...

Chromy, Debra J.

FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

FFELP or direct lending: A comparison of the decision-making process at two universities.

紀錄類型:	書目-電子資源 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	FFELP or direct lending: A comparison of the decision-making process at two universities./
作者:	Chromy, Debra J.
面頁冊數:	122 p.
附註:	Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 67-03, Section: A, page: 0856.
Contained By:	Dissertation Abstracts International67-03A.
標題:	Education, Finance. -
電子資源:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3210003
ISBN:	9780542587924

FFELP or direct lending: A comparison of the decision-making process at two universities.
Chromy, Debra J.

FFELP or direct lending: A comparison of the decision-making process at two universities. - 122 p.

Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 67-03, Section: A, page: 0856.

Thesis (Ed.D.)--University of Pennsylvania, 2006.

There have been myriad changes in the student loan industry since the passage of the Higher Education Act in 1965 (HEA). The 1992 reauthorization of the HEA changed the landscape for federal loan programs with the introduction of the William D. Ford Direct Loan Program (Direct Lending, Direct Loans, or DL). Prior to 1992, schools and borrowers relied on one primary loan program---the Guaranteed Student Loan Program (GSL), now known as the Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP)---as the primary source of federal guaranteed loan funds for higher education. FFELP uses commercial lenders, relying on a federal government guaranty to make loans to students and their parents. Direct Lending eliminated the need for both commercial lenders and guaranty agencies, by making student loan funds available directly from the federal government.

ISBN: 9780542587924Subjects--Topical Terms:

1020300
Education, Finance.

FFELP or direct lending: A comparison of the decision-making process at two universities.
LDR:03016nmm 2200301 4500 001 1829917
005 20070329084911.5
008 130610s2006 eng d
020 $a 9780542587924
035 $a (UnM)AAI3210003
035 $a AAI3210003
040 $a UnM $c UnM
100 1 $a Chromy, Debra J. $3 1918764
245 1 0 $a FFELP or direct lending: A comparison of the decision-making process at two universities.
300 $a 122 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 67-03, Section: A, page: 0856.
500 $a Adviser: Larry Moneta.
502 $a Thesis (Ed.D.)--University of Pennsylvania, 2006.
520 $a There have been myriad changes in the student loan industry since the passage of the Higher Education Act in 1965 (HEA). The 1992 reauthorization of the HEA changed the landscape for federal loan programs with the introduction of the William D. Ford Direct Loan Program (Direct Lending, Direct Loans, or DL). Prior to 1992, schools and borrowers relied on one primary loan program---the Guaranteed Student Loan Program (GSL), now known as the Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP)---as the primary source of federal guaranteed loan funds for higher education. FFELP uses commercial lenders, relying on a federal government guaranty to make loans to students and their parents. Direct Lending eliminated the need for both commercial lenders and guaranty agencies, by making student loan funds available directly from the federal government.
520 $a Beginning in 1994, colleges and universities were given an option---FFELP or Direct Lending. Over the past 11 years, colleges and universities have chosen one of these two programs for their student and parent borrowers. This study documents the decision-making process used at each of two private research universities to determine whether to enter the Direct Lending program. Using a case study approach, individuals who had participated in each university's decision-making process were interviewed; the processes were documented, and then compared. While both universities used a similar decision-making process, the result was two different decisions---one university selected Direct Lending and the other decided to stay with the FFELP. This study found four factors that contributed to the different choices. Of the four factors, the governance model---whether the financial aid office was centralized or decentralized---was a primary driver in decision-making. Financial considerations did not overrule what was in the best interests of the students. In the end, the decision for each university was based on the best fit---the challenges each university faced, and which program best met both the school and students needs.
590 $a School code: 0175.
650 4 $a Education, Finance. $3 1020300
650 4 $a Education, Administration. $3 626645
650 4 $a Education, Higher. $3 543175
690 $a 0277
690 $a 0514
690 $a 0745
710 2 0 $a University of Pennsylvania. $3 1017401
773 0 $t Dissertation Abstracts International $g 67-03A.
790 1 0 $a Moneta, Larry, $e advisor
790 $a 0175
791 $a Ed.D.
792 $a 2006
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3210003