News-Letter

Media Credit: William Parschalk [Click to enlarge]

As information about potential conflicts of interest between financial aid administrators at a variety of colleges and the loan corporation Student Loan Xpress emerged in the past few weeks, most Hopkins students probably didn't think the scandal would hit home. After all, our director of Student Financial Services, Dr. Ellen Frishberg, is an administrator held in extremely high regard. She is well liked by students, and seen as an ally in an administration that is often perceived as cold and distant. Her commitment to making higher education affordable has never been questioned. Indeed, she has served as an advocate for students in national discourse on the subject of financial aid.

But while we still believe that Frishberg was dedicated to Hopkins students, it seems her loyalties may well have been divided. Frishberg received more than $60,000 in consulting fees and tuition reimbursement from Student Loan Xpress. Now students cannot help but wonder whether she advised them appropriately.

Frishberg's involvement with the company is not as egregious as that of administrators elsewhere who owned stock. They were invested in the future success of Student Loan Xpress, whereas Frishberg appears only to have taken payments. But that, too, is disturbing. It is similar to the widely criticized practice in which pharmaceutical companies offer medical professionals lavish trips and conferences and other giveaways in order to secure their favor. We can no longer be sure whose interests Frishberg had in mind when she set financial aid policy and counseled students.

The University is taking the right position in cooperating with the Attorney General of New York. But even if there turns out to be no crime here, the administration should seriously consider whether Frishberg has a future at the University. She clearly violated the spirit, if not the letter, of the University's Statement of Behavior in Contractual Relationships, which forbids even the possibility of conflicts of interest. That cannot be overlooked.

It is clear that more oversight is needed when it comes to Student Financial Services. Students and their parents are in a vulnerable position as regards financial aid. The process is so complex that families generally must rely on the University's informational resources in order to make an appropriate decision. It is of the greatest importance that families are certain they are receiving unvarnished advice.

Frishberg's actions, unless determined in the course of the investigation to be benign, represent a breach of trust between the University community and the administration. The University as a whole must take responsibility for this disappointment and pledge to do better. As usual, greater transparency is in order. The relationship between students and the administration will not be irrevocably frayed by this disappointment, but scrutiny of financial practices, particularly those that directly involve students, ought to increase. Hopefully, this experience will teach us all to be more vigilant.

Article Tools