Do you work for Sallie Mae, Nelnet, or a student loan collection agency?

If so, I have a few questions for you about how your calls go, and what customers say to you - it's for an investigative piece I am writing. Our exchanges will remain anonymous. Please email me here: ccrynjohannsen [at] gmail [dot] com.

Lead Plaintiff SLM Ventures Files Class Action Suit Against SLM Corporation ("Sallie Mae")

Courthouse News Services reports:
A federal judge has certified a securities fraud class action against Sallie Mae, the top student loan provider in the United States.
Lead plaintiff SLM Ventures accused SLM Corp., Sallie Mae's corporate name, of telling investors it used strict underwriting standards for its loans, while weakening those standards by approving risky loans to students at for-profit schools.
The suit was filed in the Southern District Court of New York (a copy of the pdf filing is here).

What's the primary reason why the plaintiff filed suit? Sallie Mae offers federally guaranteed loans and private education loans ("PELs"). The company claimed it was adhering to, as the Courthouse News Services said above, to underwriting standards for its loans, all of its loans. In 2006, Sallie Mae's management team expanded the PEL program. As a result, the portfolio doubled, and it increased from $7 billion in PELs to over $15 billion.

The plaintiff accuses "Sallie Mae actually [of] relax[ing] its underwriting standards." In so doing, they "loaned billions of dollars to borrowers with low credit scores and other high risk borrowers who
attended part-time, correspondence, or for-profit schools [my emphasis]."

In order to hide the number of PEL loans that had were delinquent or in default, Sallie Mae moved as many of them into forbearance, which is a violation of regulations.

Albert Lord, who was a the Chairman at the time, also comes into play. In 2007, he tried to sell the company off to private equity investors. If he had succeeded, he would have received $225 million, the total amount of his stock options in the company. The deal, however, fell through.

Lord's was extremely defensive during a 2007 investors call (read the full transcript here). When discussing the expansion of PEL, he was tight-lipped and refused to answer specific questions about it. At one point he said, rather oddly, " Most of the advice I get takes the direction of playing poker and how to play poker."

But he quickly added this contradictory claim, "I think it’s important that you understand that I’m not playing poker. The board is not playing poker. We are trying to do what we’ve always done and that’s create value by running the company well."

Whatever that means . . . 

The call worsened, and Lord kept delivering bad jokes. (A word of advice to Lord: if you do quit your day job as a loan predator, don't go into stand-up comedy).

He continued with a line of dumb jokey comments."I don’t play chess. I play golf -- poorly. I don’t play the piano, but we have a piano and if you put CDs in it, it plays itself," he said.

That didn't go off well, as Lord said a few minutes later, "You guys are pretty serious today, I can see."

Again, and as the Courthouse News Service reported, he would not discuss the creditworthiness of PEL.

David Jackson, who is a contributor to Seeking Alpha, described the Q&A session as the "most remarkable" he ever experienced (see Jackson's transcription here). 

This is when Lord gets nasty. Jason Miller asks Lord several questions, and Lord essentially lets him know that it's too much. They move to the next caller who is Bill Cavalier. Cavalier begins to ask questions about securitization. Lord refuses to respond, and insists that Cavalier direct those questions to Steve McGarry (McGarry was promoted to senior vice president, investor relations in 2008).

Cavalier sounds surprised by Lord's reaction, and says, "But you’re the CEO. You’re the guy who just took over the company."

Lord replies, "Yeah, that’s exactly right. I’m the CEO. You should give Steve a call. Next question."

Apparently, that means CEOs aren't responsible for understanding the innerworkings of their companies, especially when it relates to securitizations and banking. That's obviously expecting far too much!

When the call is wrapped up, and there are no more questions, Lord says to McGarry, "How good is this? Steve, let’s go. There’s no -- no questions. Let’s get the fuck out of here [my emphasis].

Lord, like usual, was keepin' it classy. Stay tuned for updates on this case of SLM vs. SLM.

Lord: "Look, I don't f%$@*ing know! I'm just the CEO. Ask Steve. I'm going golfin' on my 18-hole golf course on my estate in Anne Arundel County. Yeah, that course was built by turning millions of Americans into indentured educated citizens . . .Oh s---t! I mean . .. just ask Steve!"

Title Your Study with Care

Today's New York Times features an article on a new study on residential segregation by Edward Glaeser of Harvard, and Jacob Vigdor of Duke University.  I'd like to draw your attention to what the study actually finds, and how it's being pitched to the national audience.

The study is produced by the Manhattan Institute'Center for State and Local Leadership. The Institute is widely recognized as a conservative research organization. 

The title of the report, as written by its authors, reads: "The End of the Segregated Century."

The NYT's headline reads: "Segregation Curtailed in U.S. Cities, Study Finds."

The NYT's tweet reads: "Nation's Cities Almost Free of Segregation"

So it seems, the study must tell us that segregation has ended, or is about to-- right?

Nope.  What it tells us, points out Doug Massey of Princeton University, a nationally recognized expert on the topic, is that segregation has declined substantially in metropolitan areas with few black residents.   I wish I could say more, but this study-- despite being covered in the New York Times-- does not currently seem to appear anywhere on the Web!

So why not title the study "Shifting Patterns of Segregation"and the headline "Segregation Declines in Some U.S. Cities, Study Finds?"

Hmmm.  Think it'd get as much attention?  Fuel as much conservative fire? Yeah, that's what I thought.

PS. Want a more nuanced take on the changing face of segregation? I recommend this study.

Good one!

Here's a newswire from The Onion:

"At This Point, Student Loan Collector Just Wants To Know If Area Man Okay."

Now that's funny, dark humor, but I'd expect nothing less from the Onion.

You Got Rejected from Your First Choice College. So What?

The following is a guest post from Robert Kelchen, doctoral candidate in Educational Policy Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

The Washington Post’s Campus Overload blog recently featured a guest post, “Getting Rejected from Your Dream School(s) isn’t a Bad Thing” by Eric Harris, a junior who attended the University of Maryland after being deferred by his first choice (Duke) and rejected by six of the other eight colleges to which he applied. (He was also accepted by Emory.) Eric’s story is hardly unique, as numerous blogs and websites feature stories of students who were rejected by their first choice college. Most of the popular media accounts of students rejected by their first choice college are from students like Eric—those who applied to a large number of highly selective (and very expensive) colleges and universities and still attended a prestigious institution.

The kinds of students who are typically featured in the media are very likely to enjoy college and graduate in a timely manner, no matter where they end up attending. But the students who should be prominently featured instead are those whose first choice colleges are very different than their other options (much less selective four-year colleges, community colleges, or no college at all). Just-released data from the Cooperative Institutional Research Program at UCLA shows that only 58 percent of students attending four-year universities were attending their first choice college in fall 2011; nearly one-fourth of students were rejected by their first choice. This suggests that a fair number of students fall into this category, but little is known about their college outcomes.

As a part of my dissertation, I am using data from the Wisconsin Scholars Longitudinal Study to examine the college experiences of students who attended their first choice college to those who attended another college—either because they were rejected by their first choice or because they were accepted by their first choice but did not attend. WSLS students all come from modest financial backgrounds and were Pell Grant recipients during their first year of college, so it is likely that the cost of college played a much larger role in their college choice process than for students like Eric.

It is important to note that students end up at their first choice college as the result of three decisions: applying to their first choice (not explored in my study), getting accepted, and then attending after being accepted. I model the acceptance and attendance decisions using available information on the students’ demographics and academic preparation, their high school of attendance, and their first choice college. This is an important step in establishing a causal relationship because WSLS students who attended their first choice college tend to come from different backgrounds (especially from more rural areas) than those who did not.

I use interview and survey data to explore whether students’ academic and social integration levels differed between students who attended their first choice and those who did not for either of the above reasons. The interviews suggest that most students reported being happy with their college of attendance, regardless of whether that was their first choice college. (Whether this is actually true or whether this is an example of self-affirmation bias, in which people try to portray a disappointing event in the best possible light, cannot be determined.) There are also few differences between students who attended their first choice and those who did not on survey measures of academic and social integration.

I also use academic outcomes from the University of Wisconsin System and the National Student Clearinghouse to estimate the effects of attending one’s first choice college. After modeling the selection process, I find no statistically significant differences on academic outcomes between students who attended their first choice and either group who did not. (This dissertation chapter is nearly complete, so stay tuned for the full results.)

It appears that being rejected from one’s first choice college is not the end of the world for most students. The psychic costs appear quite high in much of the popular media, but we don’t need to feel too sorry for students who are forced to attend a highly selective college that may have been their seventh choice instead of their first. I spent three years in college working in the admissions office at Truman State University, and I talked with plenty of students for whom Truman was not their first choice. After being rejected by elite, expensive universities, they came to Truman and turned out just fine. So don’t worry too much about getting rejected by your first choice college—especially if paying for college was never one of your concerns. Everything will be okay.

Thoughts on the Obama Blueprint for Higher Education

Today President Obama unveiled his latest blueprint for the reform of higher education at the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, a public institution with relatively high tuition and relatively advantaged students, and a place in the midst of a dispute over graduate student labor practices. It's just miles from Henry Ford Community College in Dearborn, where on July 14, 2009, Obama released his American Graduation Initiative, a blueprint for transforming the nation's community colleges, which was essentially destroyed as it was caught up in political debates over the health care legislation.

The blueprint responds to the groundswell of concern about the high and ever-expanding cost of college attendance, and the corresponding growth in the costs of financial aid. It resonates with efforts by the Occupy movement, and especially with the agendas of the Lumina and Gates foundation. It's also consonant with the work of many labor economists.

On the one hand, there are many things to like here-- for example, it's about time the Administration shined a light on the fact that tuition is rising primarily because states are cutting their support to higher education. Despite some recent unfortunate remarks by Vice-President Biden, faculty salaries don't account for much of the increase in tuition. While it is the case that the salaries of SOME professors are too high, such discussions serve only to distract from the real problems-- and have the political effect of pitting educators against students. That may be convenient for administrators, or conservatives who simply want to put the predominantly liberal faculty out of work, but it isn't solving the problem of rising tuition. We shouldn't expend effort making policy based on anecdote or a few bad apples, especially when a wealth of data is staring us in the face, pointing the way.

But in many ways, what President Obama does in this blueprint is deeply problematic. First, it demonstrates his clear adherence to market-based logics of educational reform. He seems to actually believe that Race to the Top is working so well that it ought to be replicated by creating another competition in higher education. Where's the evidence to support that? Too much faith in Arne Duncan, if you ask me.

Second, the approach of tying Perkins and SEOG dollars to these new requirements has a consequence--perhaps unintended--of restricting the abilities of financial aid administrators to exercise their professional judgment in directing aid to students. These are some of the most flexible dollars at their disposal-- and some institutions have very, very few. I'm concerned that we don't yet know whether the choices aid administrators make maximize the effects of these dollars in ways that will now be minimized-- and also that these frontline workers would seem to have little control over the institutional and state actions needed to ensure the dollars keep coming in. In other words, aid officers may have fewer flexible dollars to work with now, but no additional control over how their universities set tuition.

I'm happy to see some money to promote the adoption of practices that can increase productivity in higher education, but as Doug Harris and I have pointed out, the evidence-base on which to make judgements about cost-effectiveness of programs is very, very thin. So I'm very disappointed that this program didn't begin by first endowing the Institute for Education Sciences with the resources needed to establish multiple higher education research centers, and task them (in part) with evaluating effects of this effort.

Also, given that some of these approaches to enhanced productivity have negative effects for faculty worklife, it would have been good for Obama to at minimum urge policymakers to avoid pitting students against their educators-- as they have in criticizing teachers' unions-- and instead be cognizant that students and professors have many common interests, and those should be emphasized. I predict that next up we'll be told that faculty aren't really interested in student success, and thus can and should be replaced. Of course, no one will produce hard evidence to back that up-- and yet we'll be demonized.

When it comes to specific aid programs, it is absurd for Obama to double the American Opportunity Tax Credit without any explanation, while barely mentioning the Pell Grant. As Sandy Baum and Mike McPherson recently wrote, when "will we also debate whether government expenditures targeting low-income college students deserve much stricter scrutiny in this age of attempted austerity than government expenditures through the tax code targeting more-affluent students?"

Overall, my reaction to this proposal is a simple "Meh." (HT to Sue Dynarski) Lately Obama has come out fighting, talking about the rich and poor, and about not backing the same old policies which got us into this economic crisis in the first place. What I see in this proposal is a lot of his approach to k-12 education and it's neither radical or progressive. Sure, it resonates with the desire of moderates and conservatives (as well as so-called reformers) to hold the academy's feet to the fire, and it does talk about state responsibility. But a progressive blueprint would've referred to higher education much more strongly as a right and a public good, focused on policies that could most benefit the struggling public institutions (think community colleges and state u's-- not flagships) and left all privates out of eligibility, stressed the importance of both faculty success and student success to the definition of "quality", and instead of framing change as a "race to the top" he should have called for a "war on educational inequality."

PS. After reading my take, please consider Clare Potter's. She is spot-on, and I only wish I'd made the case as well as she did!

Why America Is Losing the War On Poverty

Here's a snippet from my latest article, "Why America Is Losing the War on Poverty," at The

Recent figures about poverty in America paint a grim picture about the living conditions of a large majority of Americans. Not only is poverty spreading rapidly, but the chances of escaping it are becoming more difficult, if not impossible. For instance, Timothy Smeeding wrote a recent New York Times article entitled, “Living the American Dream (in Canada),” in which he stated, “Of all the consequences of rising economic inequality, none is more worrisome than the possibility that a growing gap will make it harder for children of low-income and middle-class families to climb the economic ladder.” Smeeding’s argument about children is especially troubling. In 2010 the U. S. Census reported that one  in five  children now live in poverty in the U.S. Overall, the increased number of Americans living in poverty is at an all-time high.
 Click here to read the entire article.

On a final note, I visit Linh Dinh's State of the Union on a regular basis. The photography on this site is sobering, and paints a devastating picture of how poverty is rapidly spreading across the U.S. The most recent batch of photographs were of a city I know very well: Washington, D.C. The poverty and homelessness there should make each and every politician on the Hill, and in the White House, ashamed and embarrassed. And yet, they can all so easily turn a blind eye, can't they? Perhaps that is why I am not there, because I am outraged and won't compromise when I see and know that millions of Americans are suffering, homeless, and lack proper medical care. Even worse, more Americans are slipping into poverty.

Dinh's pictures also made me recall a trip I took home from Howard University (when I worked for a publishing company, I spent quite a bit of time at Howard). It was a bright, crisp day in winter a few years ago. I had just finished up a lively conversation with an amazing professor of political science. He was an older gentleman who wore a French beret, and we discussed all kinds of things. He was particularly fond of dancing, so as we wrapped up our talk, he told me about his moves. We then said our good-byes, and I got in my car to head back to Northern Virginia where I lived at the time.

As I approached the U.S. Capitol, I was awestruck and angry. I was struck by the size and sheer beauty of the building - in my view, the Capitol is most exquisite looking on cold, sunny days. Its white marble glistened under a large, winter sun. But my admiration for such fine architectural design quickly faded, as my gaze turned away from the sparkling, mammoth structure to the street I was driving down. Poverty was everywhere. Several people were pushing grocery carts. Many of the buildings were condemned, blackened, falling apart. I recall thinking, "How dare these leaders of the 'free world' claim they are doing good things in that hallowed space! Why don't they take a closer look at the streets right outside their offices?" Oh, who am I kidding? I'm forgetting that, save for Bernie Sanders, politicians never use the 'p' word. Poor? Huh? What are you talking about? And they wouldn't dare talk about the working-poor, that army of laborers who have increased dramatically over the last decade.

If things aren't changed and bold policies aren't implemented, Detroit will soon be your backyard. That is, if it isn't already. I urge you to share Dinh's pictures with your friends and family. Actively seek out opportunities to discuss poverty, the working poor, the dreadful and ever-growing gap between the rich and the poor, and other related issues. Once we all begin to acknowledge the crisis, we can begin to discuss ways in which to solve the problem.

Photo courtesy of Messay Photography

10 Student Loan Reform Leaders: #1 President Obama, Three Others, Then . . Me?

Check out my reaction to being named a leader by in the fight for student loan reform over at my column, "Seriously Subversive," at Hypervocal. (I'm number 5; the President is no. 1). What a day, and what a surprise! And my editor's note of congratulations - at the end of my short piece at Hyper -  made me blush! Such kindness.

Here's the full list on's piece about student loan reformers.

It's an honor to be listed. It means a lot to me, because I've been waging this battle for many years now - and guess what? The fight continues on behalf of the indentured educated class this coming year. Much, much more needs to be done to help distressed borrowers and those who have defaulted on their loans. There is not one solution to the problem. The crisis needs a multi-solution approach, something I've shared with numerous Congressional leaders and their staffers on my many visits to DC. 

Larry Summers Opines about the Future of Education: A response

Larry Summers, former President of Harvard and former member of both the Clinton and Obama Administrations has told us his thoughts on education in a recent article in the New York Times.

Let’s look at what he has to say about the future of education. He makes six points. I will consider them one by one.
  1. Education will be more about how to process and use information and less about imparting it. 
The naivete of this statement coming from a former President of Harvard is astounding. How exactly, Professor Summers do you expect that that this will happen? Will professors suddenly stop lecturing? Will classrooms cease to hold hundreds of students? Will Harvard no longer offer courses that are ‘Introduction to Whatever?” Will students no longer accumulate credits in order to graduate? Because if none of those things change, Harvard will continue to be about imparting information. Professors like to lecture. One of the primary reasons they like lecturing is that it requires very little effort and they can spend most of their time on research. Unless Harvard decides to no longer value research as its top priority in the hiring of faculty the incentives will not change. If the incentives for faculty do not change, students will continue to be treated like bodies in the seats in all but the most advanced classes, And, as any professor or can tell you, that means talking at them. 
Further, you are assuming that faculty actually know how to use the information they teach. Unless faculty spend serious amounts of time as practitioners in the real world, which the vast majority of them do not, the actual use of what is done with the information they have taught is typically unknown to them. Ask your faculty what students do with the information they have learned at Harvard after they graduate and see if you get any realistic answers. The faculty typically doesn't know.
2. An inevitable consequence of the knowledge explosion is that tasks will be carried out with far more collaboration

I am sure that is true. Now let’s think about Harvard. The kids who get into Harvard have learned to do everything but cooperate in order to get into Harvard and in order to succeed at Harvard. They fight to be number one in their classes in high school. They kill themselves to win the SAT competition. They cram for tests night and day all through school. At Harvard cooperation isn’t quite the right description. Anyone who saw ‘The Social Network” (the movie about Facebook) got the idea what really goes on when a new project is being worked on at Harvard. And, professors don’t really like cooperation because then they can’t figure out which member of the team really deserved which grade. As long as there are grades and tests and valedictorians there won’t be much cooperation. The workplace may well need it. Harvard isn’t teaching it. Neither, I might add, is the government for which you toiled all those years. Even Obama’s cabinet, of which you were a part, couldn’t cooperate which is more or less why you are no longer part of it as I understand it.
3. New technologies will profoundly alter the way knowledge is conveyed. Electronic readers allow textbooks to be constantly revised, and to incorporate audio and visual effects. 
Wow. You are so out of touch that you don’t even realize that textbooks wouldn’t exist at all if it weren’t for the constant lobbying efforts of textbook manufacturers. Textbooks are very last century. We have them because legislators can’t and won’t stop their sale. Most faculty use them to avoid teaching. Students mostly ignore them in any case no matter how many glitzy pictures they may now have in them. 
You are right that new technologies will alter the way learning happens but not because they will alter how knowledge is conveyed. That whole idea that knowledge is conveyed is exactly the problem. Knowledge was conveyed by Monks when they were the only ones who could read, so they lectured about what they had read. The fact that faculty still do this in the modern era is ridiculous. No one can remember very much of what they heard in a lecture.
And, it isn’t the conveying of knowledge that is the issue in education in any case. Real education means helping students attain new abilities, enabling them to do new things. And, yes, new technologies can and will help that happen, but that will happen by bypassing the existing university system unless that system decides to adapt to the new technologies, an unlikely event at Harvard I would think.
4. “Active learning classrooms” — which cluster students at tables, with furniture that can be rearranged and integrated technology — help professors interact with their students through the use of media and collaborative experiences. 
Really isn’t that a nice idea?  The last two Administrations, in one of which you had plenty of opportunity to speak, has basically killed that idea and replaced it by testing testing and more testing so that no one does anything but memorize. How dare you quote ideas from cognitive science when all that has happened in the last 12 years is the ignoring of those ideas in favor of more rote learning?
5. The world is much more open, and events abroad affect the lives of Americans more than ever before.
So? Is that going to make Harvard’s Psychology department stop teaching statistics and how to run an experiment? Is that going to make Harvard’s Computer Science department stop teaching theoretical computer science? There are already plenty of study abroad programs and language courses at Harvard.
6. Courses of study will place much more emphasis on the analysis of data.
Now this is just silly. Scientists have always relied on data. Baseball owners haven’t so maybe you are right about Moneyball. You leave out the absurd use of data like the article in the Times written by Harvard Economists 
saying how testing is relevant to evaluating teachers, an article that relied on the assumption that test scores were important in the first place.
I feel obligated to say that for someone who ran a university you really don’t know much about education. I offered some years ago to help you learn about education (through a mutual friend) but you weren’t interested. Maybe you should stop writing about a subject you don’t understand and go back to economics, a subject nobody understands.

Guest Post: UCR Students Promote a Bad Tuition Plan as Police Beat Protesters

The following is a guest post by Bob Samuels, President of the University Council - AFT and a lecturer at UCLA. It is cross-posted from his blog, where you should go to find all of the original hyperlinks. I highly recommend also reading his November entry in the Huffington Post on why public higher education should be free.

The UC Regents meeting had a little of everything this week: UCR students came up with a new way to fund the university, a long list of new salary increases was released, UCSF asked to quit the system, a retired professor was fired, protesters disrupted the meeting, Regents met behind closed doors, and police attacked protesters who were using books as shields.

What does it all mean? Perhaps, it all adds up to the demise of the modern Western social contract. Without being too dramatic, we are seeing an attempt to resist the destruction of the central institutions of modernity: the university, the public commons, and the welfare state. Although it was once taken for granted that everyone should sacrifice for the common public good, this social contract has been broken, and now some are fighting to maintain it, while others are pushing us forward to a more premodern mode of social organization.

A case in point is the UCR “Student Investment Proposal,” which argues that students should pay no tuition while they are in school, but once they graduate, they should pay 5% of their income for 20 years. At first, this appears to be an elegant solution, but it really represents the final privatization of the public university. Instead of relying on state and federal funds and a common tax base, the new system would rely on private citizens to fund their own education through the use of a non-progressive flat tax. Just as UCSF wants to break its ties with the state and the rest of the UC system, this new funding model would allow students to “pay for their own education,” and would get rid of messy things like financial aid and family contributions.

Under this neoliberal payment program, the students working at Starbucks would be paying the same percent of their income to the UC as the students working for hedge funds. Of course, the university would have a strong incentive to only accept wealthy students, since these students have the highest chance of earning a big paycheck in the future. Likewise, there would be no reason to support programs in the humanities and social sciences if the big earners will all go to law school, medical school, and business school. In short, the student proposal is a private solution to a public problem, and yet we are told that the Office of the President will take it seriously.

It is indeed telling that a student group has come up with such a regressive funding model. We can read this as a sign of the way the backlash against the public good has been so successful that even good-intentioned people present anti-social ideas as if they were progressive. While the program does insist that the state should spend 2% of its budget on the UC each year, it does not say how the UC should use this money. Instead, we are told that students will pay for their own education out of their own future earnings. Of course, this model assumes that these students will have a future income in a world where we no longer have any sense of the common good

AEM In 2012!

Hey everyone, thanks for your patience while AEM was down. I was regrouping, and needed to change things a bit. Rest assured, AEM is still here and stronger than ever. I also look forward to sharing new, exciting developments that have taken place, and that will take place in the near future.

On that note, 2012 looks promising for AEM and my work as an investigative journalist. I also have a great announcement to make - it just happened this week. Not only do I have a literary agent who is actively shopping my book to publishers, but Kathy Horn is now my publicist! This means that I have a team of people helping me raise further awareness about the student lending crisis. That also means the call for change will only get louder. (If you would like to interview me (radio, TV, etc.), please contact her for details. She can be reached at Her twitter handle is @roadrunnertalen).

2012 will be a better year for all of us - at least that is my goal. We've all come a long way, and I am amazed at the community of student loan debtors. Each and everyone of you own this cause and have become activists. It is comforting to know that I am not on the battlefield alone. All of you are so supportive of one another and me. I know that many of you find comfort in these groups, and I appreciate hearing that feedback. Without your involvement, they would not be thriving, so please allow me to express my gratitude for your continued commitment to the cause. Indeed, the fight continues, and I am refreshed and eager to push for change more than ever!

Finally, you can read more of my work at the following outlets:

The Loop 21

-Incidentally, my latest piece there is entitled, "Why America is Losing the War on Poverty"


My work will be appearing in more outlets soon, so stay tuned for those announcements!

* [UPDATE 1/20/2012]* 

I'm pleased to announce that I will be a contributing writer for Marcello Rollando's website, The Reasonable Voice. I look forward to working with Marcello this coming year!