It looks like J. Prince is giving the world the press run we wish we were getting from Drake. Last weekend, the Houston record executive revealed that he told Drake not to respond to PUSHA-T’s disrespectfully good record, “The Story of Adidon.” Today, in an interview to promote his book, The Art and Science of Respect, with The Breakfast Club, J. Prince is standing by the fact that another Drake response does exist and that it would’ve been damaging to quite a few careers.
“He definitely was cocked and loaded,” he said. J. Prince even tells The Breakfast Club that he and Kanye spoke on the phone about the beef. “This could’ve been a career-ending situation where he’s concerned, and also could’ve damaged a whole lot of livelihoods where people are concerned.” DJ Envy prods for further clarification on if it would be career-ending for Kanye, and J. Prince says coolly, “For sure, he would’ve been twisted with this one. It wouldn’t have been good for Pusha either.”
The Drake/PUSHA-T beef is getting stickier by the minute. Does another Drake record exist or is this an attempt for Drake to save face? If what J. Prince is saying is true, it would certainly provide some context for Kanye’s surrendering tweet.
Not only are we left to imagine what the alleged record sounds like, but also left wondering what dirt could Drake have on Kanye West that could indeed end his career, even when his own “free-thinking” didn’t.
In 2014, Scott Nailor, a high school English teacher from Scarborough, Maine, went more than 270 days without making a payment on his student loans and so ended up in default. Nailor couldn’t keep up with his loan payments while balancing other kinds of debt and providing for his family so, in addition to defaulting, he and his wife filed for bankruptcy.
Nailor had struggled to keep up with his debt since 2000, when he graduated from college owing $35,000. When he stopped making payments over a decade later, his balance had swelled to $55,000, thanks to continually accruing interest.
After he defaulted, Nailor decided that rehabilitating his loans was the best way to get back on track. Federal student loans in default are eligible for rehabilitation, a process that restores loans to good standing after nine monthly payments to a collection agency contracted by the Department of Education.
Student loan rehabilitation programs are one way for borrowers to move forward with repayment after defaulting on federal student loans. But many borrowers don’t fully understand the risks, experts say. Since rehabilitation can add a significant amount of money to your balance, the drawbacks can outweigh the benefits and even put borrowers at risk of defaulting again.
Scott Nailor in his classroom.
Though Nailor successfully completed rehabilitation later in 2014 and has continued to make regular payments, he now owes $130,000 because of the interest and fees for his specific combination of Federal Direct Loans and Federal Family Education Loans.
The debt feels like a problem he’ll never be able to solve. “While I’m able to keep my credit from the sewer, there’s no way to pay it off,” Nailor tells CNBC Make It.
What happens if you default on a student loan
Today, more than 44.5 million people collectively owe $1.5 trillion in student loan debt, according to the Federal Reserve. While the majority of debtors owe between $25,000 and $50,000, about 600,000 people owe more than $200,000.
In 2015, over 10 percent of borrowers in a loan repayment program defaulted within three years, according to recent data from the Department of Education. By 2023, nearly 40 percent of borrowers may default, according to the Brookings Institution. That’s thanks to “the low earnings of dropout and for-profit students, who have high rates of default even on relatively small debts,” Brookings reports. The fact that tuition has gone up while wages haven’t contributes, too.
Defaulting on a student loan damages your credit score, which can affect your ability to secure a credit card, get other loans and buy a house or car. Borrowers in default cannot take out more student loans or pick a repayment plan. The government, through the Department of Labor or the Treasury Offset Program, can also garnish wages, tax refunds and federal benefits to pay off the loan.
Nailor files paperwork every year to stay on a repayment plan that keeps monthly payments manageable and less than what he used to pay. He says he now pays about $530 a month, which does not cover the interest on his loans.
It should be one of the bright spots in the British economy, one that shines through the Brexit gloom, but the higher education sector has become a pin on which balances the most enormous mountain of debt.
And with speculation that institutions may be in financial trouble circulating around the sector, ministers are nervous.
Recent figures show that UK universities have borrowed £12bn since the financial crash – from their banks, from private investors, mostly in the US, and from the international bond markets.
Oxford borrowed £750m over 100 years at an interest rate of 2.5% and is seen as a safe bet. Cardiff was not far behind, borrowing £300m at 3% over 40 years. However, the Welsh institution ran a surplus of just £145,000 in the year to July 2017. At this rate, when the loan ends and the capital must be repaid, “it would take over 2,000 years to pay off the debt”, the IFR reported.
This colossal and rising total of university borrowing is dwarfed by projections for a rise in student debt from the current £100bn to £1tn over the next 25 years and the hundreds of millions borrowed to build student accommodation.
Not only is there a mountain of debt reliant on the success of the sector: universities generate £95bn for the economy and £12.5bn of exports. Towns and cities in Britain with a university or two derive huge benefits from the economic activity they generate. Council leaders fall over themselves to please their local vice-chancellors. With so much at stake, anyone would think that ministers would follow suit.
Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to be the case. While there are MPs and officials in Whitehall who understand how crucial higher education has become to the finances and fabric that underpin the British economy, the cabinet continues to procrastinate about two crucial issues – reforms of the student fees system and the treatment of foreign students by the Home Office.
The prime minister has set in train a review of post-18 technical education, which is a much neglected subject, but does little to address the difficulties faced by more academically focused universities.
Many of them, especially the second tier and below, are left in a tricky position. Most have already cut costs by driving their academic and ancillary staff onto precarious short-term and zero-hours contracts.
Then there is the number of 18-year-olds, which is falling. So is the number of foreign students.
Oxford and Cambridge will attract students from abroad who are prepared to jump through the Home Office’s hoops. But the less-well-known colleges, and even the Russell Group universities, are already losing out.
Loans deals, many of which were signed in the euphoria following 2012 – when colleges, suddenly awash with student loan cash, made a dash for growth – add another layer of cost. Unfortunately, debts that were once deemed affordable might not be in the next few years as annual budgets come under strain.
Last week, Sir Michael Barber, the head of the university regulator, the Office for Students (OFS), insisted the government would let higher education institutions in financial trouble go to the wall.
Barber, a former Institute of Education professor, former Labour government adviser, ex-head of McKinsey’s global education practice and chair of the OFS, knows his stuff, but those who lend serious amounts of money to the UK education sector seem to think otherwise.
Moody’s, the credit ratings agency, has built into its analysis the assumption that university loans are gilt-edged – that is to say that lending to a university is as good as lending to the government. This contradiction can be explained by the existence of a divide between the top tier of universities, which are probably safe with or without a government guarantee, and the rest, which could be let go – but with consequences not just for the debt holders. Local communities would suffer and, more broadly, the nation would see a star industry founder.
Andrew McGettigan, author of The Great University Gamble, warned in 2012 that George Osborne and David Willetts, the chancellor and higher education minister respectively, risked killing a golden goose by loading it up with debt.
Today it is even clearer that ministers, should they sit on their hands, will push the system further into the red and weaker institutions closer to collapse.
… three years ago, we knew we had to try to make The Guardian sustainable by deepening our relationship with our readers. The revenues from our newspaper had diminished and the technologies that connected us with a global audience had moved advertising money away from news organisations. We knew we needed to find a way to keep our journalism open and accessible to everyone, regardless of where they live or what they can afford.
And so, we have an update for you on some good news. Thanks to all the readers who have supported our independent, investigative journalism through contributions, membership or subscriptions, we are starting to overcome the urgent financial situation we were faced with. Today we have been supported by more than a million readers around the world. Our future is starting to look brighter. But we have to maintain and build on that level of support for every year to come, which means we still need to ask for your help.
Ongoing financial support from our readers means we can continue pursuing difficult stories in the challenging times we are living through, when factual reporting has never been more critical. The Guardian is editorially independent – our journalism is free from commercial bias and not influenced by billionaire owners, politicians or shareholders. This is important because it enables us to challenge the powerful and hold them to account. With your support, we can continue bringing The Guardian’s independent journalism to the world.
If everyone who reads our reporting, who likes it, enjoys it, helps to support it, our future would be so much more secure.
In 2014, film-maker Alex Shebanow read about Corinthian Colleges, one of America’s largest for-profit college companies, while working on a documentary about student loan debt.
Relying heavily on federal student loans, from which it took $1.4bn in yearly revenue, Corinthian was on the brink of collapse after the department of education halted the company’s flow of federal funding due to evidence of rampant fraud in its reporting of grades and job placements.
Corinthian, a behemoth of the for-profit college industry that marketed its vocational and post-secondary programs to single mothers at or below the poverty line, was already under investigation by various federal agencies, the education department, and 20 different state attorneys general when it said it could not operate for more than a few days without an influx of cash. Internal documents revealed the for-profit specifically targeted “isolated” and “impatient” individuals with “low self-esteem”.
It was this run-in with the sordid underbelly of the predatory for-profit college industry – and a multi-state investigation into a company, QuinStreet, that set up an ostensibly government-run website funneling veterans to for-profits – that inspired Shebanow to expand the scope of his project. The result is his new documentary Fail State, an expansive and infuriating account of the rise of profit-driven colleges, their devastating effects on low-income students, and the ways Republicans and Democrats have aided and abetted their treachery.
“I don’t know how these people can sleep at night,” says Shebanow, whose work so impressed Dan Rather that the famed journalist signed on as an executive producer. “A lot of people don’t realize what’s percolating beneath the surface. It was crazy that no one had done a documentary on this until now and that it took a bunch of twentysomething film-makers to do it. I was always so worried someone was going to come out with a documentary of their own because the story is so big and important. I thought there was no way we were the only ones doing it. But somehow, that was the case.”
As Fail State explains in broad, digestible fashion, all of this began in 1972, when for-profits, often called proprietary, vocational, or career-driven colleges, became eligible for federal student aid under an amendment to Lyndon B Johnson’s Higher Education Act of 1965. The rerouting of financial aid money from institutions to students themselves was meant to allow private universities to compete with public ones, whose low costs made enrollment swell. But this opened the door for profit-driven colleges, who took advantage of the desire to make higher education more inclusive by encouraging students to take out huge sums of financial aid money.
These companies promised students eventual employment and, since the money was coming from taxpayers, had no vested interest in whether or not the students could pay back their loans. As an expert says in Fail State, for-profits had what amounted to risk-free access to the US treasury. Predictably, default rates soared in the 1980s, with almost half of all students at these colleges defaulting on their loans. By 1992, however, lawmakers began to wise up to the predatory recruitment practices and the virtually useless degrees these colleges were offering students.
At the time, a series of congressional hearings, and the attention of Congresswoman Maxine Waters (who appears in the documentary), helped set in motion a series of provisions that would allow for oversight of the for-profit industry: the 85-15 rule, requiring that at least 15% of the companies’ revenue came from sources other than government student aid; the 50/50 rule, ensuring no more than half of college courses were offered online or by mail; and the incentive compensation rule, banning college recruiters from receiving bonuses based on how many students they lured to the program. In the following decade, though, congressional interest in policing the for-profit sector waned and many of these regulations were dismantled or otherwise softened.
Governor-elect Tony Evers and U.S. Senator Tammy Baldwin made a final campaign stop at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater Nov. 5, one day before they each won their respective races in the 2018 elections.
Evers and Baldwin, who were joined by state assembly member Don Vruwink and state treasurer Sarah Godlewski, spoke about issues such as healthcare, education and getting young adults to vote.
The quartet of Democrats looked upon a room packed with UW-Whitewater students, faculty members and Whitewater residents in the University Center Room 69. The group of politicians urged everyone to go vote Nov. 6.
“If we get people starting to vote early, they will continue to vote for the rest of their lives,” Evers said.
The first speaker was Godlewski, a first-time candidate. She spoke about reducing student debts and the ability to refinance student loans. Her words garnered a positive reaction from the students and applause throughout the entire room. She finished her speech by endorsing Mandela Barnes, the Democratic candidate for Lieutenant Governor and Evers’ running mate.
Next to speak was Baldwin, who was the incumbent Senatorial candidate. Along similar lines, she spoke about the ability to refinance student loans but moved on to cover healthcare and tax breaks. Baldwin said she was excited to be in a place with so many young people.
“You bet I’m excited to be at UW-Whitewater, and I want the entire student body to vote,” Baldwin said. “I want young people to recognize their power in a democracy.”Grace Holler
Baldwin spoke to the crowd about how she had a childhood disease and had trouble finding insurance with a pre-existing health condition. She criticized outgoing Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s “intolerance” to those with a preexisting health condition, and his proposed healthcare plan.
The last candidate to speak was Evers, the former state schools superintendent and now the state’s governor-electHe endorsed both Vruwink and Barnes.
“UW-Whitewater is on the ballot,” Evers said, citing his wish to increase funding for the UW-System.
Evers spoke about the Wisconsin governor’s ability to replace six members of the UW-System’s Board of Regents and how he feels it’s important for the upcoming governor to value education.
He told the crowd he plans to raise state infrastructure spending and fill in “Scott-holes” in our roads. Evers’ message was largely critical of Walker, his political adversary. Evers said Walker was “unfit for office and puts his own political ambitions ahead of Wisconsinites.”
Evers spoke last about how he plans to increase the funding for the state’s Department of Natural Resource, which has seen increased responsibilities despite lower funds in the last years.
After a long round of applause, Evers put down the mic and walked off stage, but was greeted with a chorus of “Happy Birthday” by the UW-Whitewater College Democrats.
All four politicians the students had just seen went on to win their respective races Nov. 6.
As most now know, skyrocketing student debt can be particularly devastating for young adults.
But it’s not just millennials who are delaying life’s major milestones because of their loan burdens, according to a new report by the Association of Young Americans, or AYA, and AARP, an association representing the interests of Americans over age 50.
Debt from student loans is also standing in the way for Generation X and baby boomers, the report said.
“The trillion dollar student loan crisis is having a tangible impact on all Americans across all generations,” said AYA founder Ben Brown.
“Student loan debt has been a barrier in making key life decisions and planning for the future,” Brown said. AYA and AARP polled nearly 5,000 adults, including millennials, Gen Xers and boomers, between July and August.
Here’s a look at some of the long-term consequences:
Saving for retirement
Four in 10 respondents said student loan debt stopped them from saving for retirement, including 41 percent of millennials, 38 percent of Gen Xers and 31 percent of boomers.
Buying a home
About 1 in 3, or 32 percent, said college debt prevented or delayed them from buying a home, including 36 percent of millennials, 26 percent of Gen Xers and 32 percent of boomers.
Helping a family member
One-quarter of those polled said student loans stood in their way when it came to financially helping a family member, including 23 percent of millennials, 29 percent of Gen Xers and 26 percent of boomers.
Having health care
Nearly 1 in 5, or 16 percent, said their debt burden hindered them from getting the health care they need, including 17 percent of millennials, 16 percent of Gen Xers and 9 percent of boomers.
Overall student debt reached a record $1.5 trillion this year, according to the Federal Reserve. Seven in 10 seniors graduate with debt, owing about $29,650 per borrower, according to the most recent data from the Institute for College Access & Success.
To ease some of the burden, Brown recommends sending in a little more than the minimum payment each month toward principal of the loan — by even $10 or $20 — to pay off your loan faster and spend less in interest.
“The sooner you can repay your student loans, the less you have to pay,” he said.