For the Love of Money

¶ … Money

After reading both of the articles for these assignments, I actually do think that universities should enter into affinity agreements with universities. There are simply too many benefits to this approach to rightfully consider terminating these agreements between credit card companies and universities. Additionally, the vast majority of the detriments of these agreements are readily mitigated by a number of precautionary measures, the vast majority of which were previously implemented near the end of the last decade (Lederman, 2010).

There is no disputing the financial benefits associated with affinity agreements between universities and credit card companies. It is key to realize that universities in particular are able to capitalize on these agreements. In fact, there are a number of examples of universities that have earned millions of dollars in revenue (Silver-Greenberg, 2007) simply by letting credit card companies take priority on their campuses with affinity agreements, in which the company usually offers products that are closely associated with the university it is doing business with. Furthermore, it is extremely vital for universities to attain these sorts of funds from credit card companies, since there has been a dedicated effort to reduce state funding for public schools and universities in particular (Lederman, 2015). It is also noteworthy to mention that credit card companies are also able to monetize these agreements by getting new customers.

In addition to the aforementioned boons pertaining to affinity agreements between credit card companies and universities, it is relatively easy to reduce the risks and the perceived drawbacks of these benefits. The vast majority of these drawbacks directly relate to students, and perhaps to faculty members and workers who are stationed on campus, since there was a history of unfavorable credit card terms that typified these agreements (Silver-Greenberg, 2007). However, there was legislation passed in 2009 by the current president that makes these cards much more viable and advantageous to students than they previously were. For instance, credit card companies and the universities must now publish the credit card terms that an individual agrees to when enrolling in a particular credit card. By making these terms public knowledge, both the company and the university is making a concerted effort to illustrate the fact that they have nothing to hide, and that these agreements are not only mutually beneficial for them, but also for the students that accept them.

Moreover, there are aspects of this particular legislation that recommends that universities actually provide classes for financial training for students. I have long thought that one of the most neglected aspects of the educational system in this particular country is the fact that it makes very little effort to educate consumers about the reality of being consumers, and of their finances. There is so much theoretical education provided to students at all ages (particularly prior to college) that has no practical application. Educating students about the realities of the financial world, credit, facets of mortgage, and other pecuniary factors can certainly help reduce the incidence of students prematurely ruining their credit in poor credit card deals. This aspect of the legislation and others minimize the negatives associated with affinity agreements, and make them much more plausible to students.