Talk:Sallie Mae/Archive 1

Archive 1

Lack of citations

I removed content because of a lack of citations. A lot of this article still doesn't have any real references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 12:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Rsleavitt Edits

There seems to be a bit of biased editing on the part of user Rsleavitt. To preserve the relative objectivity of the information presented on this page please do not use loaded language such as "Learn the truth abouth Sallie Mae... or took aim" ect. If there is evidence contrary to what is presented one should properly discuss and cite such informati —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.107.62.159 (talk • contribs) 14:03, May 23, 2006 (UTC)

Rsleavitt responds: Actually, I was responding to biased writing to begin with. The original author made unsubstantiated claims based on the reporting of CBS News. Not an organization known for its objectivity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.175.204.145 (talk • contribs) 04:45, August 31, 2006 (UTC)

BumYogi responds: The truth about Sallie Mae, either positive or negative, will not be determined any time soon. The private postsecondary vocational institutions own the federal and state regulatory agencies which in reality function as industry associations. There is no enforcement of student protection laws including those that relate to financial aid programs. California, which has the largest number of such educational institutions and should be the leader of student protection, is regulated by the Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education. This agency admits to major problems that it explains as the reason for backlogs, non-enforcement, lack of funds, etc. However, the resulting image of incompetence is misleading on purpose. It is actually very competent at appearing incompetent because that is a useful way to divert attention from the absolute corruption that exists in the agency and the direct resulting harm to the very students it is supposed to protect. The employees who objected to corruption are now unemployed in state service despite the general assumption that state employees are difficult to terminate. Termination is not necessary when terrorizing "troublemakers" is now an option now during this period of corruption from the highest to lowest levels. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BumYogi (talk • contribs) 09:34, October 3, 2006 (UTC)

The truth is simple: they are basically loan sharks. The interest rates on their loans are high enough that I would consider it highway robbery. My brother is already being tortured by these crooks. Interest rates are up in the 20% range, and they never do anything to teach students how to properly read the paperwork. There's no way anyone without vast experience in banking would be able to see through their trickery enough to go elsewhere. Starting college students have no chance unless they have friends or relatives who know this stuff, which is fairly rare. This place needs to be shut down pronto. They are basically crooks posing as a business. That is not bias, that is plain and simple fact. --12.201.52.181 (talk) 21:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC) Lindsey Lewis

I agree. I dont see how this company still stands. My situation is horrible with Sallie Mae. I had someone take out loans forging my name for my entire 4 years of college. Sallie mae never once got in contact with me or any of the co-signers to see if they were legit. The checks got directly deposited into someone else's bank account other than my own and this never put up red flags with the company. The interest rates were all over 12% and the loans were over $100,000. You would think a loan company would to their part in making sure that the people taking out the loans are really these people. They do nothing to ensure that their practices are safe. As long as you have someone social security number...you can take out as many loans as you want and Sallie Mae will never call to verify. I hope this company and all their employees rot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.197.19.242 (talk) 17:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

2007 Buyout Offer

• Didn't see the previous addition & removal. Will leave it for the moment. --RayBirks 09:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Logo salliemae.gif

Image:Logo salliemae.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

NPV (Neutral Point of View)

The article's opening sentence violates NPV because there are no references and it plagiarizes the company's about page. I am removing it. Kernel.package (talk) 18:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a violation of NPV - it's just a lack of citation. I suppose the other option would have just been to add a citation that points to the company's website. But it doesn't matter, the lead-in paragraph is fine right now. Midtempo-abg (talk) 09:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

This information has been changed numerous times and, I think, is due to what is on their site. (Reference in the disclosure, to not being "sponsored" by an agency of the "United States ...) The fact that it is incorporated in Delaware may or may not be relevant. The disclosure probably exists to call attention to the fact that it is not a "Government Sponsored Enterprise" (GSE). The fact that it once was allows for investors to purchase an interest based on this outdated information. To avoid problems related to investor misunderstanding (whether imposed by the company or by the SEC) the disclose is made.

Nevertheless, the lead-in text obscures the information in this disclosure. The "litmus test" of whether or not the information, as presented, introduces bias (obscures relevant information) is the appearance of articles similar to this one. NPOV can logically be maintained if the way information presented in this article is identical to the way similar info is presented in similar articles. The disclosure, for reference, is: "SLM Corporation and its subsidiaries are not sponsored by or agencies of the United States of America."

To restate this, Not being sponsored either by the US Department of Education or by another agency within the US government is not a fact likely to enhance its value on a US exchange. Together with pending legal risks, this becomes motive for obscuring the facts. (Information about legal matters is readily obtained by search engines.) Kernel.package (talk) 16:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Removal of inappropriate comments.

I just removed an inappropriate comment. Something to the effect of, "[Date] I have an issue with Sallie Mae's business practices. If this is not corrected I will sue." Jproddy18 (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Sallie Mea

I am disappointed that a company I once used to assist my family with educational support is no longer there for me. Today I spoke with Henry from Sallie Mea who informed me that without an impeccable credit report without any blemishes over the last 7 years, no matter how good of a credit score one has they will not lend to you.

For a $29.00 disputed collections that were paid over 4 years ago and a credit score just shy of an 800 they will not lend any assistance. This is very sad since they are one of the many that we have assisted in bailing out. We were needed to be there to help them get back on their feet but they are not there for those who work hard to put their kids in college. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennel.rowe (talk • contribs) 18:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

---

SLM Corporation → Sallie Mae – Seems to be the more WP:COMMONNAME. Slightly more Google Search hits: 3.19M vs. 2.82M. More Google News hits: 88 vs. 29. Finally, their website is "© 1995-2011 Sallie Mae, Inc.", and their logo and consumer branding likewise use "Sallie Mae". Cybercobra (talk) 06:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sallie Mae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20081024061320/http://www.newamerica.net/blogs/education_policy/2007/10/news_scoop_sallie_mae_demands_suny_schools_turn_over_personal_data_their_students to http://www.newamerica.net/blogs/education_policy/2007/10/news_scoop_sallie_mae_demands_suny_schools_turn_over_personal_data_their_students

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)