Feds end student loans and institutional support for some majors

[Anonymous]

Federal loans part of the reason why college tuitions are skyrocketing. So good move!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are idiots if we starve the liberal arts. The obsession with creating worker bees for companies instead of fostering a well-rounded education is bonkers.

This

That’s not what the proposal is about. It’s about terminating useless degrees at $100k a year schools that end up with salaries less than a high school graduate. Go back and read the actual proposal. My expensive “psych”undergrad degree at a $$ SLAC was worthless

How was it worthless? There is such high need for Psychologists, no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Federal loans part of the reason why college tuitions are skyrocketing. So good move!

Will college tuition come down??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What do you think of this?

Will this prediction come to pass: "He predicted that many universities will “cut their losses” by closing programs in the fine arts, humanities, social sciences and ethnic and sexual studies."

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2026/jan/13/education-department-approves-rule-ending-federal-funding-low-paying/

The article “claims” that the administration is taking these steps allegedly to:

- administration is working “to break the cycle of student debt and poor return on investment” that graduates increasingly experience.

But can anyone explain why they feel degrees in ethnic and sexual studies would lead to a poor return on investment or greater unpaid student debt?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you think of this?

Will this prediction come to pass: "He predicted that many universities will “cut their losses” by closing programs in the fine arts, humanities, social sciences and ethnic and sexual studies."

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2026/jan/13/education-department-approves-rule-ending-federal-funding-low-paying/

The article “claims” that the administration is taking these steps allegedly to:

- administration is working “to break the cycle of student debt and poor return on investment” that graduates increasingly experience.

But can anyone explain why they feel degrees in ethnic and sexual studies would lead to a poor return on investment or greater unpaid student debt?

Because no one hires those majors, which are mostly BS.

[Anonymous]

I don't understand the mechanics of something like this. What if a low-income student is admitted to a school undeclared, and ends up choosing a sociology major with the goal of pursuing an LCSW or decides to become an English teacher? Are they going to claw back their Pell grants for however many years?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are idiots if we starve the liberal arts. The obsession with creating worker bees for companies instead of fostering a well-rounded education is bonkers.

This

That’s not what the proposal is about. It’s about terminating useless degrees at $100k a year schools that end up with salaries less than a high school graduate. Go back and read the actual proposal. My expensive “psych”undergrad degree at a $$ SLAC was worthless

I considered a psychology degree but switched to economics. However, I viewed both as essentially just liberal arts degrees. I use the skills I developed in college but barely any of the facts or theories I studied. Most of the college educated women in my family became SAHMs after teaching a few years. But that doesn't make their degrees worthless. PP, why do you think your degree was worthless?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We are idiots if we starve the liberal arts. The obsession with creating worker bees for companies instead of fostering a well-rounded education is bonkers.

Here's the problem, the well-rounded education should have been happening in high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Federal loans part of the reason why college tuitions are skyrocketing. So good move!

Will college tuition come down??

Unfortunately, they tend not to roll back.
But there is truth to federal subsidies and a corollary uptick in tuition costs. Colleges also play the game of pricing at what the market will bear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are idiots if we starve the liberal arts. The obsession with creating worker bees for companies instead of fostering a well-rounded education is bonkers.

This

That’s not what the proposal is about. It’s about terminating useless degrees at $100k a year schools that end up with salaries less than a high school graduate. Go back and read the actual proposal. My expensive “psych”undergrad degree at a $$ SLAC was worthless

How was it worthless? There is such high need for Psychologists, no?

Actually, psych degrees are the prime example of low ROI.
Psychologists actually need a doctoral degree to be a psychologist. Just majoring in psychology isn't enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are idiots if we starve the liberal arts. The obsession with creating worker bees for companies instead of fostering a well-rounded education is bonkers.

This

That’s not what the proposal is about. It’s about terminating useless degrees at $100k a year schools that end up with salaries less than a high school graduate. Go back and read the actual proposal. My expensive “psych”undergrad degree at a $$ SLAC was worthless

How was it worthless? There is such high need for Psychologists, no?

Actually, psych degrees are the prime example of low ROI.
Psychologists actually need a doctoral degree to be a psychologist. Just majoring in psychology isn't enough.

A PP. I have experience in the market research field. That's a reasonably in-demand, reasonably-compensated liberal arts degree holder profession. It is common that entry-level staff have psychology degrees or minors.

It's so weird to me that people think various degrees are only channeling people to the literal same name profession.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are idiots if we starve the liberal arts. The obsession with creating worker bees for companies instead of fostering a well-rounded education is bonkers.

This

That’s not what the proposal is about. It’s about terminating useless degrees at $100k a year schools that end up with salaries less than a high school graduate. Go back and read the actual proposal. My expensive “psych”undergrad degree at a $$ SLAC was worthless

How was it worthless? There is such high need for Psychologists, no?

Actually, psych degrees are the prime example of low ROI.
Psychologists actually need a doctoral degree to be a psychologist. Just majoring in psychology isn't enough.

A PP. I have experience in the market research field. That's a reasonably in-demand, reasonably-compensated liberal arts degree holder profession. It is common that entry-level staff have psychology degrees or minors.

At Starbucks, sure.

You must live in some alternate universe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Why should taxpayers pay for poor educational choices young adults are making? Why aren’t parents guiding their children to make financially responsible decisions?"

Because until now we lived in the United States of America where Americans had freedom to chose to go into debt.

If you want to live under a dictatorship then we are no longer the US.

Trump wants more Trump Universities that's his goal nothing more nothing less. It's all about the money flowing to him.

Students can still take on plenty of debt. It just won’t be federally provided. The private sector can fill that niche just fine.

This is kind of where I fall in the debate although I'd probably call it "provided, backed, or forgiven." And before anyone yells -- well we need folks like social workers -- I'd tell you "yes, that's true" but I'm also more a fan of a supply-demand market. If they/govt-agencies couldn't fill the slots, they'd have to raise the salaries, no different than for engineers or programmers or attorneys. BTDT on both sides of the hiring table.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So these majors will be the new markers of the wealthy and elite? Because they'll be the only ones who can afford to take humanities, fine arts and social sciences?

It has been that way for a while now for most students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:On face value, the idea of forcing students to consider the return on investment for a degree should be bipartisan. Tying the ability to get any federal loans to that seems like a hard line and I feel like there’s another policy solution. When neither side trusts the other and the assumption is that changes like this are part of a broader attack on colleges it really limits any real discussion.

Nonpartisan. The word is nonpartisan.