Concerns That New Department of Education Earnings Test Could Undermine Arts, Public Service Degree Programs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Simplified, the proposed regulation states that federal loans would not be available if a degree holder earns less than an average HS graduate in their state.

According to AI, an average HS graduate in DC initially earns 39k year, a little over minimum wage.

If a specific college degree can’t guarantee that a graduate will make more than a minimum wage and requires to take loans to pay for it, then it is our civic duty to deny those loans. If colleges are truly in this for the betterment of society, they can discount non profitable degrees, offer merit aid, maybe even provide their own loans and see how it works out. Otherwise government needs to step in and prevent what is basically a predatory practice. 18 year olds don’t even have their cortex matured, the part responsible for making decisions and regulating emotions.

Also, how’s what government is proposing different from what a credit lender does? You want 100k loan to start a business, you better show that you can survive and at least do as well as other businesses in that space.

No, it is not our "civic duty" to deny those loans to young Americans trying to get an education, and no college degree is able to "guarantee" that a graduate will make more than minimum wage within a timeframe-there's a lot of factors that schools can't predict related to economic health, trends in hiring, and the ability of a specific student to use their degree to become gainfully employed. You're buying an education, not a toaster.

And what hypocrisy to demand that American students who need loan must show that they can survive and repay. The USA funds $40 bn in loans to Argentina to prop up a failing currency and hundreds of billions in military aid to Israel--it just shows that Republican priorities are to use taxpayer dollars for preferred allies, and not to invest in American students.

older Americans right now have an obsession with making America a worse place for anyone that isn’t them. Genuinely no care for the younger population: their social mobility, their access to jobs, their quality of life. It’s grotesque.

[Anonymous]

It’s so sad that this country treats education like nothing more than a commodity with value assigned based on earnings, and not a public good, especially when some who get that education will go into public service or other fields that benefit civil society. We are so short-sighted.

[Anonymous]

The “Accountability in Higher Education and Access Through Demand-Driven Workforce Pell” rule, once implemented, will require undergraduate programs currently eligible for federal student aid funds to show that their graduates are earning more than individuals with high school diplomas. The rule would also require graduate and professional programs to show that their graduates are earning more than graduates of bachelor’s degree programs.

I don't support the first bolded part. Undergrad should be a time to explore and make mistakes, not vocational training.

But the second bolded part is good policy. Graduate education, even in the arts or liberal arts, has to be vocational in nature. The cost and opportunity costs are too high - it's not fair to put people through it without a good salary on the other end.

[Anonymous]

PP here. I honestly and passionately disagree It is our duty to prevent 18 year olds from making a serious mistake. Just because a college sends them a glitzy brochure (or a few dozen), does not make it a good decision.

We don’t let them drink or smoke at that age, do we? Because drinking and smoking has bad consequences, just like taking loans that you can’t repay since you are making minimum wage same as an old HS classmate. Except that the classmate does not have to repay college loans and has a 4 year head start in making money and work experience.

Yes, it sucks to make education choices based on money, but we all make choices based on money, don’t we? Want to be an artist, but can’t get loans? Major in public health and minor in arts, have a fallback plan to allow you repay loans. Or don’t take loans, be a true starving artist student - live off campus with 6 roommates in a cheap area, eat Cheerios three times a day, work at night.

[Anonymous]

This is crazy. We had an awesome student loan program with almost zero defaults. We should not have changed a thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is crazy. We had an awesome student loan program with almost zero defaults. We should not have changed a thing.

I am not sure if you are sarcastic or truly not aware. Here is a pretty good article from the Motley Fool (funny name, serious topics) - https://www.fool.com/research/student-loan-debt-statistics/?msockid=107a8323f45165f2061e9783f5f96456
Here is another one - https://thecollegeinvestor.com/39673/does-the-government-profit-off-of-student-loans/

Can you think of any business that can sustain up to 20% loss each time they sell something? I can agree with government breaking even on the loans, but losing money every year requires action. Best not to provide loans to customers who are at a high risk of not paying back in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fine with me. Schools should not be offering degrees that never pay off.

Like education?

I don’t know… I kind of feel we should help people who are interested in serving others over self.

We can’t all serve ourselves.

Teachers should not attend schools that cost 80-90K per year using loans. That is pure stupidity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fine with me. Schools should not be offering degrees that never pay off.

Well, we shouldn’t be financing such degrees with public loans. If some heiress wants a degree in studio art, she should absolutely be allowed to spend daddy’s money on it, even if the degree will never pay off in a narrow economic sense.

What a self-own this is.

Your family clearly doesn’t have any talent in the arts and you don’t have a home where art, music, dance, and drama are present. If you did, you would support arts education. How sad.

I don't think they don't support arts education. They just don't think the American people should be financing it for students who will most likely default on their loan (as history has shown). There are plenty of full pay families that can continue to pay the tuitions for these humanities programs.

What about financing an education degree? Elementary English - reading?

They would still be able to get loans, but at GMU or JMU, NOT a place like northwestern or brown.

It makes perfect sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I understand concern about debt, but the rule proposed actually has nothing to do with debt. It focuses entirely on whether the program has an "earnings premium," meaning whether it enables students to make more money than if they'd never gone to college at all. Teaching is very relevant to this. It requires a college degree, it can pay well enough to pay off modest loans, but it might fail that test in some places. I


There was a previously existing rule (it didn't apply to most colleges) that DID focus on debt, looking at whether the average debt to earnings ratio for graduates was sufficient to pay back the debt. Applying that rule universally would actually address concerns about debt, but this doesn't do that.

No one who wants to be a teacher should attend a school the costs more than a state university

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fine with me. Schools should not be offering degrees that never pay off.

Like education?

I don’t know… I kind of feel we should help people who are interested in serving others over self.

We can’t all serve ourselves.

+1 Seriously. Good luck to all the students out there who aren't rich but want to go into teaching, government service, social work and yes, the arts. I guess those fields are only for rich people who want to do them.

They would just attend state universities, not an over priced liberal arts school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fine with me. Schools should not be offering degrees that never pay off.

Well, we shouldn’t be financing such degrees with public loans. If some heiress wants a degree in studio art, she should absolutely be allowed to spend daddy’s money on it, even if the degree will never pay off in a narrow economic sense.

I feel the opposite. If you have an extrememly talented person with limited means, we lose so much by not susidizing the full development of their talents. It's like susidizing theaters and art museums.

I have kids at those expensive performing arts programs.

If a poor kid has that kind of talent, the arts programs scholarship them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fine with me. Schools should not be offering degrees that never pay off.

Like education?

I don’t know… I kind of feel we should help people who are interested in serving others over self.

We can’t all serve ourselves.

+1 Seriously. Good luck to all the students out there who aren't rich but want to go into teaching, government service, social work and yes, the arts. I guess those fields are only for rich people who want to do them.

They would just attend state universities, not an over priced liberal arts school.

You think no one takes out loans at state universities?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:God, the people in this forum are AWFUL. Late stage capitalism in its ugliest incarnation. Some of the people posting here just have zero sense that art or education or ideas have any value to society because they don't make someone rich. These MAGA parents think their rape-y investment banker bro is contributing more to society through self-enrichment than an art teacher or public humanities professional ever could. This is why our country can't have nice things.

I have a rising senior and so have checked out this forum for tips. No more. So glad I never encounter these people in real life.

+1 And they don't even realize it. They are probably "educated" in that they have degrees, but they don't have a well-rounded education. It's really sad.

NP. I’m highly educated. I see the value of a well rounded education but I don’t think taxpayers should be paying for people to study things for pleasure that don’t have economic benefits, which is what happens these days with so many people defaulting on their loans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fine with me. Schools should not be offering degrees that never pay off.

Well, we shouldn’t be financing such degrees with public loans. If some heiress wants a degree in studio art, she should absolutely be allowed to spend daddy’s money on it, even if the degree will never pay off in a narrow economic sense.

I feel the opposite. If you have an extrememly talented person with limited means, we lose so much by not susidizing the full development of their talents. It's like susidizing theaters and art museums.

This. It has always been the case that richer students gravitated towards majors in the arts, but now they will be the exclusive domain of the 1%ers if students can't access loans because their earning potential might be low.

I agree. This, plus the majority of spots at top conservatories could wind up being filled by international students, continuing an existing trend in certain areas (i.e. classical music).

[Anonymous]

Social workers should not be burdened with $200,000 in college loans.