Panel Pushes New College-Loan Plan

A White House panel which this summer devised a new college-loan plan is seeking Congressional approval for that plan.

The panel proposes that the repayment of government loans be based on the student's salary after graduation. Thus, a student earning more would repay more than a student earning less who received the same loan.

For every $4000 the student is loaned, he would pay back one per cent of his yearly income after college for 40 years. He would have the option to pay back the loan in full at any time, at standard interest rates.

Whether the plan is passed by Congress or not depends on how the extra-governmental groups react," Andrew M. Gleason, professor of Mathematics and a member of the panel, said Friday. "What we need is some group with a Congressional lobby to get behind it and push for it."

Gleason explained that there is tremendous pressure in Congress to get more federal money to college students. He said that the much-discussed Ribicoff bill, which would provide income tax reductions to student's families, is not the answer.

"That bill is as regressive as the income tax is progressive, Economically, it is not sound. It completely disregards the student whose family is so poor that it doesn't even pay income tax," Gleason said.

Under present governmental loan programs, the government matches the student's interest payments, each paying three per cent. The loans are given primarily from local banks. The student must first show that he really needs the money and second convince the banker to give him the money. "It is very difficult for Negroes in the South, for instance, to get loans under such conditions," Gleason pointed out. The panel's proposal eliminates such conditions.

Its plan would give money to any student who wanted it, and would let him go to any college he chose. "There are a lot of people we think we could reach who can't get loans under present programs," Gleason said. "We'll give loans to those students whose families will only give the money for particular college.

Some groups--such as the American Association of Land-Grant Colleges--have opposed the plan because it gives governmental money directly to students rather than to institutions. Gleason believes it better to put money in student hands. "This would give them more choice in where they go to college and more influence once they get there," he said.

student in debut to the government for too long. But, Gleason said, "the student under the plan would think more about what he does in college and when he is 45 and paying back the loan, he will think more about what he did in college and influence his children in their college careers.