Only two weeks into 2019, and already Capitol insiders are buzzing about new higher education laws, presidential hopefuls are heading to Iowa, and governors across the country are rolling out new ideas. To make sense of it all, I polished my Magic Eight Ball to hazard four predictions about the next 12 months.

1. Congress will advance higher education legislation.

Congressional efforts to rewrite the Higher Education Act are gaining steam. Sen. Lamar Alexander, who leads the Senate education committee, announced his retirement, leaving higher education as his only major piece of unfinished business. Newly re-elected House Speaker Nancy Pelosi noted the effort in her recent statement on higher education. Think tanks are polishing their position papers, and congressional staffers are drawing up lists of policy options.

Sen. Alexander and his Democratic partner, Sen. Patty Murray, are effective legislators with a track record of working together. Most recently, they produced a bipartisan bill on one of the most controversial questions in Washington: how to stabilize the Affordable Care Act. Now, with Rep. Bobby Scott taking the helm of the House Education and Labor Committee, we have the best chance yet at a new higher education law.

2. States will invest more in college affordability.

With improving revenues, states are in a better position to spend more on need-based aid and keeping tuition low. A growing national conversation about free college has put pressure on policymakers to introduce bold affordability ideas, and a spate of newly elected Democratic governors takes office this month eager to make a splash.

In his first days in office, California Governor Gavin Newsom proposed substantial investments in Cal Grants, keeping tuition low at community colleges and public universities, and steps to help more students graduate. Even better, Newsom described these steps as a "down payment" on greater resources to come.

Look for more states to join California in investing in college affordability in the coming months. The investment is sorely needed: State spending on higher education is lower than it was 10 years ago, adjusted for inflation and enrollment growth.

3. Student debt for graduates will grow slowly, though millions will continue to struggle

Last September, in their annual report on student debt, TICAS researchers Diane Cheng and Veronica Gonzalez found that average debt of graduating seniors is growing more slowly than in years past. After growing by about 6 percent per year between 2008 and 2012, it grew by less than 0.5 percent between 2012 and 2016. I expect the slower growth will continue into 2019.

We don't know for sure why student debt is slowing down, but there are likely several factors. Greater state spending and scholarships may have helped make a dent. Increased media focus on college costs may have made students more careful consumers.

While slower growth in student loans is welcome news, costs remain high and many borrowers continue to struggle. More than 1 million students default each year, and low-income students and students of color are particularly likely to struggle to get out from under their college debt.

4. The bloom will come off income-share agreements.

Income-share agreements have entered the higher education hype cycle. The idea is to replace traditional loans and allow students to repay their tuition as a share of their future earnings. The hype reached its highest point last week when New York Times columnist Andrew Ross Sorkin described them as "a fundamental shift that could finally lift the crippling debt load we routinely push onto students."

Of course, because students are obligated to make future payments, income-share agreements are merely a different form of debt. For almost all students, federal student loans offer lower rates and a similar option to repay as a share of income. Income-share agreements may make sense for some students, but they are niche products that complement federal loans, not a solution to college affordability.

Not that long ago, policymakers often left higher education on the back burner. No longer. More and more Americans are looking to college as the best bet to join the middle class and enjoy a better life. Student debt is now a kitchen table issue that immediately impacts families' lives, the very reason we may see change in 2019. Time will tell.


Posted in

| Tagged

After the pomp and pageantry of today’s inauguration, one of new California Governor Gavin Newsom’s first acts will be to release a proposed state budget for 2019-20. News accounts suggest that his first budget will embrace the fact that investing more in education – from preschool through adulthood – must be a priority for California to retain its economic strength and standing. Reclaiming the state’s mantle as a pioneer in affordable, quality higher education will require new investments in need-based financial aid to ensure that the cost of a degree is within reach for all Californians.

Currently, low-income students at the vast majority of public colleges in California would have to work more than 20 hours per week to afford college costs, after accounting for grants and scholarships. This is true even when tuition is free because other costs like living expenses, textbooks, and transportation make up the majority of students’ college costs.

While California has the largest state grant program in the country – the Cal Grant – most eligible grant applicants do not receive grants because too few are available. Many of those who do receive grants have seen their award amounts stagnate, though the 5 percent of community college students who receive Cal Grants can access supplemental programs that make up for some of the lost ground. 

Yet while the extent of the problem is substantial, there is reason to be optimistic. More than ever before, there is agreement about the existence of a problem, how it manifests, and how to solve it.

  • There is a strong consensus in California that college is unaffordable. The majority of Californians – including more than six in ten Democrats and Republicans alike – believe college affordability is a big problem.
  • Experts generally agree that the state’s affordability challenges contribute to equity gaps in who gets to and through college, hold students back from completing degrees, and can leave graduates with burdensome levels of student loan debt to repay. The experts’ near universal recommendation: to provide more support to students who need help paying for nontuition costs of college.
  • Since 2016, there have been several proposals, including two at the request of the Legislature, to reform California’s financial aid. Each of the proposals envisioned a new approach: taking students’ total college costs into account and expecting that students and families would make financial contributions that were reasonable given their own financial circumstances. Federal, college, and state grant aid would cover the rest.
  • While student groups and student-focused advocates have long called for increased investments in Cal Grants, colleges have now joined the charge. The California Community Colleges Board of Governors recently requested an additional $1.5 billion in financial aid support their students, “given evidence that additional financial aid improves the likelihood of retention and completion.” University of California president Janet Napolitano and California State University president Tim White recently said that financial aid reform “can be a cornerstone of further student achievement,” and called upon the state to “expand the reach of Cal Grants” and increase “the availability and size of what is currently known as the Cal Grant B Access Award [which helps students cover nontuition college costs].” And at its last meeting of 2018, the California Student Aid Commission voted to recommend reducing Cal Grant eligibility barriers and to focus more on students’ total college costs than has been done historically.

The level of attention paid to financial aid reform in recent years is unprecedented, as is the level of consensus around where new investments need to be made. Governor Newsom has also demonstrated a keen understanding of these issues, and he committed to ensuring that state financial aid expands to serve more students and to a greater extent. We look forward to working with the governor and Legislature as they chart a new course for California that restores its role as a national leader in quality, affordable higher education. 

Posted in

| Tagged

This post originally appeared in Forbes.

In Washington, gridlock is a running theme. So it’s not surprising that, even before all the winners of the election were named, experienced observers put the odds of higher education legislation at close to zero. After all, Congress has only passed one comprehensive higher education bill in the last 20 years, and the Capitol is now under divided control.

This time, though, the skeptics might be wrong. The 119th Congress may be the first to rewrite the Higher Education Act since 2008.

Key congressional leaders are saying the right things. Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA), who is expected to lead the House education committee, will make higher education a priority. So will Senate chairman Lamar Alexander (R-TN), who is entering his last term leading the Senate education committee. Patty Murray (D-WA), the Democratic point person in the Senate, is a seasoned legislator with a track record of success. Together with Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-VA), this is the same Big Four that defied expectations and shepherded the Every Student Succeeds Act into law in 2015.

Alexander has been exploring higher education for three years already, and over the last 12 months, Foxx worked hard to advance her flawed PROSPER Act. Their failure may seem discouraging, but the reality is that most legislation fails, often several times, before it succeeds. Past efforts serve as roadmaps, helping future legislators avoid pitfalls and find common ground.

Another counter-intuitive factor: divided control can actually make legislation easier. In the 38 years since the Democrat-led reauthorization in 1980, the HEA has never been reauthorized unless the parties shared control over the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the White House.

That’s not just an interesting bit of historical trivia: in the Senate, the minority party must cooperate to avoid a filibuster. If that party does not control either the House or the White House, these senators may block any movement out of fear that they will be denied a seat at the table later in the process.

And there is common ground. Already, Alexander and Murray have unveiled a joint proposal to use tax data to simplify the processes for applying for student aid and repaying student loans as a share of income. Both parties agree on the need to reduce the number of different kinds of student loans and repayment plans. With Scott in the driver’s seat in the House, the prospects for bipartisan efforts to collect better postsecondary data -- such as the College Transparency Act -- have also improved.

There are, of course, also pitfalls. One is traditional: spending. The Trump Administration and House Republicans have proposed large cuts to student aid to reduce the deficit. Democrats are seeking substantially more resources for free college and Pell Grants. The number of senators running for president could make these cross-currents even trickier to navigate.

On college accountability, policymakers from both parties say they want to better protect students and taxpayers from unaffordable debts. But Democrats and Republicans have clashed fiercely on rules like borrower defense and gainful employment, which protect students from predatory colleges and low-value career programs. The Trump Administration is systematically dismantling these protections through deregulation and willful neglect.

Campus sexual assault -- another area of Administration action -- will be another challenging issue for negotiators.

And let's be clear: no bill is better than a bad bill. Lawmakers must be ready to walk away from any deal that fails to hold colleges accountable for unaffordable debts, deception and fraud. Any law must also invest in making college more affordable for students who need help the most.

But a higher education law does not need to resolve these issues once and for all with a grand, enduring compromise. It only needs to find a way through the thicket that all parties agree is better than where we are now.

Ultimately, even if legislation fails, it will become a starting point for a future, successful law. Over the course of the next two years, trial balloons will be floated; coalitions formed and legislative text drafted and voted upon. The results of these debates will shape future laws.

It’s a lot of work to get an act of Congress, but the right lawmakers seem committed to giving it a try. After decades of rising college costs and growing inequality, that’s a good thing.


Posted in

| Tagged

Over the past 13 years of work on college affordability, TICAS has earned a strong reputation for policymaking expertise, an evidence-based approach, and commitment to putting students first. TICAS is known for climbing into the trenches alongside policymakers to impact public policy, and as a result of its work student loans are more affordable, scholarships are larger, and the financial aid process is simpler.

With student debt at $1.5 trillion and rising, TICAS’ mission has never been more important. Today, we are excited to announce new additions to our team that will help us carry forward this legacy and make college the reliable path to the middle class it has the potential to be.

Beth Stein is TICAS’ new vice president responsible for managing our federal policy team. Most recently, Beth was general counsel and chief oversight counsel for Assistant Democratic Leader Senator Patty Murray’s staff at the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. A twenty-year Hill veteran, Beth led Senator Tom Harkin’s two-year investigation into abuses in the for-profit college sector, as well as investigations into medical devices and campaign finance violations, and helped pass major legislation including the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act and the Affordable Care Act.

Patricia Balana joins us as chief operating officer and chief financial officer, where she will help chart TICAS’ strategy and manage all aspects of finance, information technology, and human resource functions. Patricia previously worked at Jobs for the Future, where she was COO and also directed JFF’s multi-state-level policy and advocacy network. Previously, Patricia spent four years at the American Institutes for Research, where she led the Regional Education Laboratory work on educator effectiveness across the mid- and southwestern states. She was the Chief Operating Officer at the Belfast Schools Authority in Northern Ireland for almost a decade.

The TICAS board of directors is thrilled to announce three new members: Frank Chong, Zakiya Smith Ellis and Kate Tromble. Frank Chong is the president of Santa Rosa Junior College in California. Zakiya Smith Ellis is the secretary of higher education for the State of New Jersey. Kate Tromble is the pastoral associate for social justice at the Holy Trinity Catholic Church in Washington DC. Frank, Zakiya, and Kate will bring important expertise, experience, and diversity to our board.

Last, but certainly not least, several TICAS staffers have earned promotions in recent weeks. After nearly 12 years of extensive contributions to all aspects of TICAS’ work, Debbie Cochrane has been named executive vice president. Three other TICAS staffers who have long been central to organizational success have also earned promotions this year: Jessica Thompson is now director of policy and planning, Diane Cheng is our research director, and Shannon Serrato is TICAS’ communications director.

Please join TICAS board chair, Richard Kazis, and me in congratulating these individuals on their new roles.

Posted in

| Tagged

This post originally appeared on the National College Access Network (NCAN) blog.

By Diane Cheng, Research Director at The Institute for College Access & Success (TICAS), and Erica Rose, Senior Director of Programs, Massachusetts, at uAspire

Affordability is a key issue for many students and families when choosing which colleges to apply to and attend, but the financial aid process can seem overwhelming. At the recent NCAN conference in Pittsburgh, TICAS and uAspire shared specific ways that counselors can help students and families approach the issue of college affordability and understand their financial aid options.

Here are a few of the tips and tools we shared:

  1. The Financial Aid Toolkit from the U.S. Department of Education is an online "one-stop shop" for counselors, with information about financial aid and a searchable database of resources – including resources in Spanish and information for parents.
  2. To help decide where to apply, students and families can use the Education Department's College Scorecard, an online college comparison tool with data on costs, graduation rates, debt, post-college earnings, and more.
  3. To look past sticker price and get early, individualized estimates of financial aid, students can use net price calculators. These online tools are required to be on almost all college websites, and can help students start thinking about affordability early in their college search.
  4. Students and parents can now fill out the FAFSA on their phones, using or the myStudentAid mobile app. However, certain functionality is only available on and not currently available on the mobile app (e.g., access for undocumented parents who can’t get an FSA ID, and students’ ability to view their Student Aid Report or make corrections to their FAFSA).
  5. Since students can now start filling out the FAFSA on Oct. 1 each year, they should start building college lists during their junior year. Those lists should include colleges that students know they have a good chance of being accepted to and can afford. Students should also fight the urge to make a deposit before receiving and reviewing all award letters – wait until National College Decision Day (May 1)!
  6. When filling out the FAFSA, students and parents should use the IRS Data Retrieval Tool (DRT) to electronically transfer their tax data into the FAFSA. This tool helps simplify and shorten the FAFSA process as well as reduce how much documentation students have to provide if they are selected for verification.
  7. Students are not done with the financial aid process after they complete the FAFSA! Some will be selected for verification and required to submit additional documentation to colleges before they can receive financial aid. Counselors can help by having students request IRS documentation early (tax transcripts if they or their parents filed taxes, and verification of non-filing if they didn’t file taxes), making sure they keep an eye out for verification, and reassuring them that being selected doesn’t mean they did anything wrong!
  8. Our research has found that many financial aid award letters are inconsistent, confusing, or misleading to students. Counselors can help by providing a glossary of terms, analyzing and comparing award letters with students and families, and brokering communication with colleges. See more tips here.
  9. When reviewing estimated bills, students should consider savings, tuition payment plans, summer work, and outside scholarships before considering loans. If they need to borrow, they should turn to federal loans first, which guarantee consumer protections and repayment options that private loans do not.
  10. For information about student loans, check out TICAS’ resources on and the Education Department’s resources on and YouTube. The Education Department also offers an online repayment estimator that can help students see how expected borrowing translates into monthly payments and understand the range of repayment plans available for federal student loans (including some plans where payments can be as low as $0).

For more tips, see our handout from the conference.

Posted in

| Tagged

Yesterday, Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR), together with Senators Stabenow (D-MI), Gillibrand (D-NY), Baldwin (D-WI), Blumenthal (D-CT), Schatz (D-HI), Cardin (D-MD), and Cortez Masto (D-NV) introduced the Affordable Loans for Any Student Act. At a time when one in four federal student loan borrowers are delinquent or in default on their student loans, this bill makes common-sense and urgently-needed changes to simplify and improve repayment options. If enacted, these ideas will ultimately help reduce default.

The new bill incorporates longstanding TICAS recommendations to streamline today’s multiple income-driven repayment (IDR) plans into a single, improved plan that works better for students and taxpayers. At the same time, it preserves borrowers’ ability to repay their loans through fixed monthly payments over a fixed period of time, if that is what they prefer. While IDR is not the right repayment plan for everyone, it provides more manageable monthly payments for many borrowers because payments are tied to income and family size. Data show that borrowers in IDR are less likely to be delinquent or in default than borrowers in other repayment plans.

The specifics of an IDR plan directly impact its ability to serve the critical role of a safeguard for borrowers struggling with unaffordable debt. The single IDR plan created in the Affordable Loans for Any Student Act takes important steps to help borrowers manage their student debt, and targets the plan’s benefits to those who need them the most. The proposed streamlined IDR plan includes the following key features:

  • Monthly payments are capped at 10 percent of income. A borrower’s monthly payments are equal to 10 percent of his or her adjusted gross income – as is currently the case in three of the five existing IDR plans. This helps ensure that student loan payments are a manageable share of a borrower’s income.
  • The monthly payment formula protects very low earnings, while targeting benefits to borrowers who need help the most.  All of today’s IDR plans recognize that borrowers must cover basic necessities like housing, food, and transportation before making payments toward student loans. The single IDR plan created in this bill expands this “income exclusion” threshold from 150 percent to 250 percent of the federal poverty level, so that a single borrower earning less than $30,000 a year would not be required to make student loan payments (the calculated payment would be $0). This income exclusion is gradually phased out for higher-income borrowers.
  • All borrowers in IDR make payments based on income. In some of the existing IDR plans, monthly payments are capped at the amount required under a fixed 10-year plan. This allows high-income borrowers to pay a smaller share of their income than lower-income borrowers. Like the REPAYE plan, the IDR plan created in this bill requires all borrowers to make payments based on their income. This increases the plan’s fairness, and would prevent borrowers with high incomes and high debt from receiving substantial loan forgiveness when they could have afforded to pay more.
  • Any remaining balance after 20 years of payments is forgiven. All borrowers in the PAYE and 2014 IBR plans, as well as borrowers with only undergraduate debt in the REPAYE plan, receive forgiveness after 20 years of payments. This represents a critical light at the end of the tunnel for borrowers whose incomes remain very low, relative to their debt, for decades. Maintaining this protection is important, because extending the repayment period for any subset of borrowers in IDR disproportionately harms the lowest income students, who take longer to repay their loans than higher-income borrowers.
  • Automates annual processes so borrowers can more easily continue making payments based on income. The latest Education Department data show that more than half (57 %) of borrowers enrolled in IDR plans miss their annual deadline to update their income information, which can lead to unaffordable spikes in monthly payment amounts and interest capitalization that adds significant cost to a loan. To eliminate this unnecessary burden on both students and loan servicers, this bill automates the annual process by allowing borrowers to give permission for the Department of Education to automatically access their required tax information, with the ability to revoke that permission at any time. The bipartisan SIMPLE Act and the White House’s latest budget request to Congress both propose this same change.
  • Automatically enrolls distressed borrowers in IDR. The bill notifies delinquent borrowers of IDR eligibility, and automatically enrolls borrowers who are severely delinquent (those who have not made any payments for 120 days) as well as borrowers who defaulted and completed rehabilitation into IDR. Borrowers would always have the opportunity to opt out of this process.

Beyond making these critical improvements and simplifications to IDR, the Affordable Loans for Any Student Act makes additional changes that will lower the cost and reduce the burden of student debt. For example, the bill eliminates interest capitalization and origination fees, limits income seizure for loan payments from borrowers in default, and consolidates existing deferment and forbearance options into a single, easy-to-understand “pause payment” process. The bill also requires school certification of private loans, which ensures that students are advised of their federal loan options prior to taking out private loans. Over half of undergraduate private student loan borrowers have remaining eligibility for federal loans, which are less risky and come with important consumer protections, such as IDR.

There is broad bipartisan recognition of the need to simplify the current array of IDR plans and improve the processes by which students repay their debt, and the Affordable Loans for Any Student Act stands out as the reform borrowers urgently need—reducing the costs and burden of student debt, simplifying and improving repayment options, and lowering the risk of default.

We applaud Senator Merkley for his continuing leadership on strengthening IDR to better serve struggling borrowers, and urge Congress to act quickly on this much-needed legislation. 

Posted in

| Tagged

At the national conferences last week for the National College Access Network (NCAN) and National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC), I joined forces with uAspire’s Erica Rose and Bernadette Astacio to share counselor tips to help students and families understand financial aid, throughout the college decision process. We discussed how to help students decide where to apply, where to attend, and how to pay for college – covering topics such as the College Scorecard, net price calculators, mobile FAFSA, verification, financial aid award letters, and student loan options. Over 150 counselors, college representatives, and other college access professionals attended and actively engaged in our sessions.


In the days since our conference sessions, the Department of Education has made two major changes that significantly intersect with the material we covered. First, the myStudentAid mobile app was fully launched for the 2019-20 FAFSA, and students and families should be aware of some technical issues and limitations with that mobile app. Additionally, the Department removed important information from its College Scorecard consumer site – national comparisons on cost, affordability, and outcomes, as well as the share of former students at a college who earn more than the typical high school graduate.

On October 1st, the 2019-20 FAFSA became available on the Department’s myStudentAid mobile app as well as on – which is also now mobile-friendly. While this is good news for students and parents, there are technical issues (reported by NCAN and NASFAA) and limitations to be aware of. Students and parents using the mobile app who are unable to electronically transfer their tax information using the IRS Data Retrieval Tool (DRT) should try updating the app to the latest version or, if that fails, use instead. The DRT is a key tool for simplifying and shortening the FAFSA process, as well as reducing how much documentation students have to provide if they are selected for “verification,” so it is worth trying to use the DRT in a different way rather than input the information manually. Additionally, certain functionality is only available on and not currently available on the mobile app. This includes parents’ ability to transfer their data to another child’s FAFSA or access the FAFSA if they can’t get an FSA ID (e.g., if they are undocumented), as well as students’ ability to view their Student Aid Report (SAR) or make corrections to their FAFSA. Students should also watch out for short time-out periods on the mobile app, to avoid losing their entered data if they answer a phone call or get otherwise interrupted while using the app.

On September 28th, the Department eliminated critical contextual information from its College Scorecard tool. The College Scorecard is an online college comparison tool that can help students decide where to apply. For years, the Scorecard has included context on whether a college’s cost, graduation rate, student loan repayment rate, and post-college earnings are higher or lower than the national average. For example, the screenshot below was taken in July 2018, from the Scorecard page for the University of Pittsburgh – Pittsburgh campus.

However, as of last Friday, that national comparison is gone (see screenshot below, which also reflects other data updates made in September).

The Department has removed the national average, now arguing that it would be more appropriate to compare outcomes to other colleges with similar levels of selectivity or serving similar student populations. However, without seeing the national average or any other comparison, students and families are left with no way to tell whether a college’s cost, affordability, or outcomes should be considered high or low. As a result, all the colleges on a student’s list could be unaffordable or have low likelihoods of student success, but students would not have that critical context. For more on this issue, see this blog post from Clare McCann at New America.

Additionally, the Scorecard consumer site (available online as well as on the myStudentAid mobile app) no longer includes the share of former students at each college who earn more than the typical high school graduate. The Department used to describe this measure as “a baseline measure of success—is the typical student who attended this institution in better financial circumstances than if he had begun working with only a high school diploma?” While this measure is still available for download, it no longer appears on the school profiles for students and families.

These changes are, together, unfortunate turns for a consumer tool that has represented a valuable step forward toward providing students and families with more accessible, transparent, and comparable information about colleges’ costs and outcomes. We urge the Department to restore this information to the Scorecard consumer site as soon as possible.

Posted in

| Tagged

Today, we updated College InSight ( – our unique web site for higher education research – with selected data for academic year 2016-17. These updated data include the cumulative debt of graduates, college costs, racial diversity, and the financial aid received by undergraduates.

For nine years, College InSight has been an easy-to-use, consumer-friendly resource for anyone interested in analyzing issues related to college affordability, diversity, and student success. Whether you are a prospective student interested in the racial and ethnic diversity of colleges you’re considering, an institutional researcher curious about how your college’s institutional grant aid awarding compares with that of peer institutions, or a policymaker trying to better understand differences in costs and debt across different types of institutions or states, this database is a valuable resource to identify and highlight important trends in higher education.

College InSight includes rich data from over 12,000 U.S. colleges and universities and nearly 200 variables. Unlike other higher education data tools, College InSight features totals and averages for states, sectors, and other groupings of colleges. In addition to data from the Department of Education, this tool includes undergraduate financial aid data from the Common Data Set (CDS), such as financial need, institutional grants, and the cumulative debt of graduates.

If you’re interested in student debt data, check out our 13th annual report, Student Debt and the Class of 2017, which was also released today. This report covers student debt for bachelor’s degree graduates from public and nonprofit colleges. Our interactive state map features state averages as well as college-level data, and connects to College InSight. 

If you have any questions or suggestions about our data, please email us at

Posted in

| Tagged

The gainful employment rule enforces the Higher Education Act’s requirement that all career education programs receiving federal student aid “prepare students for gainful employment in a recognized occupation.” The rule uses debt-to-earnings ratios to assess whether career education programs at public, nonprofit, and for-profit colleges are leaving their graduates with reasonable debt burdens. Programs that exceed allowable thresholds—those consistently leaving their graduates with more debt than they can repay—must improve or lose eligibility for federal funding. This rule also provides consumers with key information about program costs and outcomes so they can make an informed decision about where to enroll.

The Department of Education has proposed rescinding the gainful employment rule completely, arguing that programs’ performance under the rule can be explained by factors like student characteristics and economic background, program field, and school location. However, similarly located career education programs serving similar students can have very different outcomes.

We recently identified several poorly performing programs that are located near programs that have much lower cost and/or much better outcomes. For example:

  • In Birmingham (AL), graduates from the criminal justice administration bachelor’s degree program at Strayer University typically earned almost twice as much and owed $6,600 (20 percent) less than graduates from the same program at Virginia College.
  • In South Plainfield (NJ), graduates from the dental assisting certificate program at Central Career School typically earned $6,600 more per year and owed about half as much as graduates from the same program at Everest Institute.

In addition to providing the same program in the same city, the schools in each comparison serve demographically similar groups of students, as measured by the share of the student body that receives Pell Grants, is Black, or is Hispanic/Latino.

These examples demonstrate the need for the gainful employment rule to prevent poorly performing programs from continuing to bilk students and taxpayers, and to keep unscrupulous schools from enrolling as many students as possible without regard to the quality of the training or job prospects. They also show that students have alternative options for where to enroll even if poorly performing programs close.

To learn more, check out:

  • Our new analysis for more comparisons. 
  • Our comments on the Department’s proposal to rescind the gainful employment rule.
  • The comment submitted by 68 organizations representing students, consumers, veterans, service members, faculty and staff, civil rights, and college access – demonstrating broad support for affordable, quality career education.

Posted in

| Tagged

This week, in a strong showing of bipartisan commitment to strengthening federal student loan counseling, the House of Representatives passed the Empowering Students Through Enhanced Financial Counseling Act (H.R. 1635). The bill, introduced by Representatives Guthrie (R-KY) and Bonamici (D-OR), makes key improvements to the timing and content of counseling that all federal student loan borrowers must receive. These changes include ensuring students receive information about their borrowing options and obligations every year, requiring consumer testing of the Department of Education’s online loan counseling tool, and explicitly advising students to exhaust their federal student loan eligibility prior to considering riskier private loans.

Federal student loan borrowers are currently required to complete counseling only twice – once before taking out their first loan, and once upon completing or exiting their program. Thousands of schools use the online student loan counseling tools offered by the Department of Education to provide this counseling. These tools have greatly improved over the years, including through modernizing and streamlining the format, and more fully integrating existing income-driven repayment options into loan repayment plan explanations, as we’ve long recommended. However, by requiring consumer testing of a new online annual counseling tool developed by the Department of Education, the bill passed by the House recognizes that more can and should be done to ensure that the information students receive about their loans is relevant and easy to understand. Students can easily become overwhelmed by the complex information and new terms and concepts related to student loans and repayment. Consumer testing is critical for designing counseling that avoids such common pitfalls and maximizes the potential of counseling to support students making consequential decisions about how to pay for college every year.

The bill also includes a key provision that requires loan counseling to advise students to exhaust their federal student loan eligibility prior to considering riskier private loans, and to provide information about important consumer protections that are unique to federal student loans. This guidance is critical: data show that over half of students who take out private loans having remaining federal student loan eligibility.[1]

Too many students face a financial reality that necessitates borrowing to cover the cost of college; and for students facing the largest financial barriers, not borrowing means not pursuing or completing a degree at all. While loan counseling on its own – however improved – will not solve the problem of college affordability or prevent potentially burdensome student debt payments, it is key to ensuring that students are at least equipped with the necessary understanding of federal loan terms, including options for repayment, before they sign on the dotted line. We thank Representatives Guthrie and Bonamici for their longstanding leadership on this issue, and urge the Senate to follow the House’s direction in making these bipartisan, common sense reforms to student loan counseling.

[1] TICAS analysis using the U.S. Department of Education’s National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS), 2015-16.

Posted in

| Tagged


Subscribe to Blog
Error | The Institute For College Access and Success


The website encountered an unexpected error. Please try again later.