Earlier this week, a group of student loan companies and servicers launched Protect Student Choice, a campaign that is lobbying against the bill that would end subsidies for private lenders in the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program and use those savings to increase the Pell Grant for low-income students. Based upon the list of signatories and their comments, the coalition appears to be similar to other pro-FFEL groups that are largely composed of loan industry employees because of concerns about job losses. But one thing that sets the coalition apart from others is that it actually contains a student voice.

A number of students groups and organizations,have taken action in favor of the legislation to eliminate FFEL, known as SAFRA, or the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act. (For example, Campus Progress’ Students Over Banks, the federation of State Public Interest Research Groups, and the U.S. Student Association.) But there has been very little student voice in opposition to SAFRA–Tim Ranzetta from Student Lending Analytics tried to find some a few weeks ago and came away empty-handed.

As part of Protect Student Choice, however, Patrick McBride a first semester freshman at Vanderbilt University has come forward in opposition to the SAFRA bill. I got a chance to speak with him this morning about his views on the legislation and how he got involved in the campaign.

Originally from Milwaukee, Wisc., McBride describes himself as a neutral party on this issue, and would not say if he had student loans or not, only adding that he does not “have a personal stake” in the issue. He also said he does not know any student loan company employees. UPDATE: McBride also confirmed via e-mail that he has not received compensation of any sort from the campaign or associated parties.

A pre-med student, McBride said he became interested in the topic of student loans after coming across some stories about it on the Internet. Admitting he was at first “ambivalent’ on the topic, further research and a conversation with David Mohning, his school’s  executive director of the Office of Student Financial Aid and Undergraduate Scholarship convinced him that he did not like the SAFRA bill. After writing an article for the Vanderbilt Torch, the school’s conservative and libertarian publication,  McBride said he received a call from someone at Qorvis Communications in Washington, D.C., that asked him to join the campaign.

McBride said his opposition to the bill is mainly twofold: the loss of private sector jobs and the quality of the product that would be provided when students lose choice. “From my discussion with Dr. Mohning and from the research I’ve done, just intuitively it seems like the same government who can’t administer a program like cash for clunkers is going to take over something that is vitally important for students like their ability to pay for their college education,” McBride said. “I’m wondering how the government is basically overnight, within a couple of months, taking on all the processing or customer service,” he added.

When pressed further about the service issue, McBride added “If you’re not pleased with the service you are getting from your lender than you can switch lenders. It’s the same trite example of government customer service, it’s the DMV. People who really have an awful track record for customer service.” He admitted, however, that he was not an expert in the student loan program and did not appear to be aware of the of role for private and non-profit servicing companies providing most of this customer service in any proposed student loan changes.

Of course the bill’s biggest selling point for students is not eliminating lender subsidies but rather increasing the Pell Grant for low-income students. McBride said he thinks that is “actually one of the best parts of the bill.” But he added that he was skeptical of the bill’s savings, noting a Wall Street Journal editorial that discussed how the savings are not as large as originally expected. (You can see the editorial here, and Higher Ed Watch has a good response to the cost savings argument here.)

I asked McBride if he had talked with any Pell Grant students about the bill and he said that he was not sure of any because he and his friends do not discuss that type of financial aid. He did discuss the bill with students who have loans, but said “there is kind of an apathy among students [about financial aid] because for the most part their parents are the ones who take care of it.”

McBride’s final main opposing argument to the bill regarded what he termed a government takeover that would add $100 billion in new entitlements. Though he admitted that he did not know if the number was accurate (Kevin challenges its accuracy here), McBride said it did not matter because “we are taking on a sizeable amount of additional responsibility.”

When pressed further on this issue, especially the claim used before that the government cannot take over its own program, McBride returned to the issue of jobs. “I think if you look at the bottom line, the government is basically now going to control an area that the private sector administered under the FFEL and there’s going to be a significant loss of jobs,” he said. “Whether the semantics of is it a takeover or is it not does not matter for the people who are losing their jobs.”

As the student loan debate moves forward and the Senate gets closer to released its own version of the bill, it will be interesting to see if McBride remains the only student to visibly come forward as part of the SAFRA opposition or others join a movement that to date has largely been lender and servicer dominated.